PDA

View Full Version : Initial comments for EAD for I140 Regulation


Pages : 1 [2] 3

abcdgc
01-09-2016, 01:29 PM
In compromise with EAD they should least give us quarterly spill over

I want to know what you are smoking? Do you live in Colorado by any chance?

racoon786
01-09-2016, 01:38 PM
No more spillovers dude, EB1C and EB1I made sure of that

buffbloke
01-09-2016, 02:13 PM
In compromise with EAD they should least give us quarterly spill over

That's one ridiculous suggestion. Opening up the immigrant workers on open market is exponentially better strategy than fiddling with quotas and spillover calculations. EAD is one strategy that removes all bad actors ( inept employees, exploiting employers) . US workers as well as immigrants benefit from it by removing fake demand driven by suppressed wages.

DMX17
01-09-2016, 02:59 PM
Check out IV Facebook if you have not already.

Greenleaf
01-09-2016, 05:22 PM
From IV Facebook page:

"Update from yesterday's meeting at The White House:
We had an open and honest heart to heart discussion for almost an hour and half. There are legal limitations of what we could or could not discuss. As an outcome of this meeting, we are now working on a detailed plan to do our share to make this regulation closer to the current law. This is not going to be easy or simple. But if everyone sticks together and helps us execute the plan, there is a way to fix this. So please stay tuned as we work on the next steps.
To reiterate, we need everyone to stick to the plan and not get distracted by initiating other campaigns, especially refrain from starting "online petitions".

RH_93
01-09-2016, 09:36 PM
From IV Facebook page:

"Update from yesterday's meeting at The White House:
We had an open and honest heart to heart discussion for almost an hour and half. There are legal limitations of what we could or could not discuss. As an outcome of this meeting, we are now working on a detailed plan to do our share to make this regulation closer to the current law. This is not going to be easy or simple. But if everyone sticks together and helps us execute the plan, there is a way to fix this. So please stay tuned as we work on the next steps.
To reiterate, we need everyone to stick to the plan and not get distracted by initiating other campaigns, especially refrain from starting "online petitions".

Thanks IV...you are awesome ! Should we still continue providing our "true" and deeply felt feelings into the comments section for this rule???

freedomForAll
01-09-2016, 11:36 PM
Your Comment Tracking Number: 1k0-8nas-7rbg

I have attached the IV file as well as my own comments added. From today on every weekend, I will keep posting my angry comments at this rule to ask them to improve this version.

I hate these kind of lawyers and those bad employers...

Keep going IV. We are right behind you..

nvedia
01-09-2016, 11:40 PM
Your Comment Tracking Number: 1k0-8nas-7rbg

I have attached the IV file as well as my own comments added. From today on every weekend, I will keep posting my angry comments at this rule to ask them to improve this version.

I hate these kind of lawyers and those bad employers...

Keep going IV. We are right behind you..
If you have attached the IV file as is, it would be considered as mall mail campaign and only one comment
Please check your comment a day after posting

freedomForAll
01-09-2016, 11:40 PM
IV Team,

I have signed up for a small donation on a recurring basis right now. Sorry I have some personal situation and cannot contribute more for now. However, it will increase in some time soon as I get my personal issues resolved.

Till then , I hope these drops will help you achieve our freedom :)

Your purchase was successfulPayments By PayPal
Description Terms Amount
Donation to Support Immigration Voice (User: freedomForAll)
$30.00 USD for each month, for 12 installments
Effective Date: Jan 9, 2016 $30.00 USD

freedomForAll
01-09-2016, 11:44 PM
If you have attached the IV file as is, it would be considered as mall mail campaign and only one comment
Please check your comment a day after posting
Hi,

No I did not attach the same file. I simply took the contents and saved them in a notepad along with the starting comments which are mine at the start.

---------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to express my strong rivulsion to the manner in which this entire rule brings down the hopes of the millions of legal immigrants who were promised EAD and AP along with job portability but it was broken withi is watered down version. As per an organization which represents backlogged legal immigrant community, this was due to the involvement of the lobbyist in the DHS just a few months before bringing out of the rule. After carefully reading the contents of the rule and the details coming out of the modus operandi behind it as per the above mentioned organization, it seems that there is a lot left out from this proposed relief of the POTUS. I would like to request that the FBI investigate in the way the rule was developed and the possibilities of corruption around this rule-making involving the forces who wanted to prevent legal immigrants from getting EAD + AP.

Here are my comments:-
1) EAD and AP should be given to all the legal immigrants who have their I-140 approved.
2) There should be no "compelling circumstances" cause in the rule. That is just horrible. Please remove it.
3) Remove the clause of only allowing those within one year of their dates being current to apply . Please remove this restriction along with the other.
4) Remove the need to file for a new green card application after they have switched jobs. The old I-140 should be available in order to file for the green card.
5) Start an FBI investigation of possible corruption angles in this rule making process.

I am sure that you know about the talent leaving this country and moving outside the US to start businesses and create jobs. This rule fails in every way to help the legal immigrant who is backlogged and who was promised relief by the White House. Please revise this and take help from Immigration Voice to get this done. If taking help from a corporate lobbyist is not a problem for DHS ( who has clear interests in watering down the rule and preventing freedom to backlogged legal immigrants) then I am sure that you can do the same. Also, please ask the FBI to get involved. This will surely help.

I have added further comments in the attached files which should give the complete picture of my thoughts on this rule.

This rule needs to be improved so that H1B and other legal immigrants can go ahead and switch jobs, start businesses and create jobs for Americans in the USA as well as give them the freedom to live life without the fear of exploitation from the employer. This will also help raise wages for the Americans as no legal immigrant will be forced to wait in the same job at low wages.

Please improve and make the rule more beneficial for the legal immigrants who are waiting for their green cards fo so long. I dont think you want them to go back especially when they could be starting businesses, creating jobs and paying taxes to the governments overseas, if they did so due to the frustrations of the current immigration system.
Uploaded File(s)(Optional)

I140_EAD_Rule_Comment.txt: success

gnh
01-10-2016, 09:37 AM
[QUOTE]

From IV Facebook page:

"Update from yesterday's meeting at The White House:
We had an open and honest heart to heart discussion for almost an hour and half. There are legal limitations of what we could or could not discuss. As an outcome of this meeting, we are now working on a detailed plan to do our share to make this regulation closer to the current law. This is not going to be easy or simple. But if everyone sticks together and helps us execute the plan, there is a way to fix this. So please stay tuned as we work on the next steps.
To reiterate, we need everyone to stick to the plan and not get distracted by initiating other campaigns, especially refrain from starting "online petitions".

[\QUOTE]

'Closer to current law ??'

What does that mean.. What law ?

maddy1234
01-10-2016, 12:32 PM
What does "Current Law" mean?

IV can you shed some light?

gopal008
01-10-2016, 01:04 PM
What's should we do now ? I mean should we still continue posting comments on the regulation?

abcdgc
01-10-2016, 02:14 PM
What does "Current Law" mean?

IV can you shed some light?

Obama said one thing and did something else on right about everything during his 2 terms. See for yourself. This is the new low for politics which is suppose to be dirty.

How Obama failed to shut Washington's revolving door - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/barack-obama-revolving-door-lobbying-217042)

This explains what happened to EAD for I140 regulation.

RandomizedPrecision
01-10-2016, 10:09 PM
Thanks IV...you are awesome ! Should we still continue providing our "true" and deeply felt feelings into the comments section for this rule???

Yes, please do. It can't hurt to provide our unambiguous and unanimous disapproval of this rule. Now that USCIS has fired its first shot by issuing this ridiculous rule, we have to act to make them change it and commenting boldly is the right way to do it. The last thing we want is for any of these bad actors to be able to fudge the statistics and argue that not too many people disapproved of it in the first place.

shinepushpan
01-10-2016, 10:28 PM
I have added the comments . My comment tracking number is 1k0-8nbf-c091

shinepushpan
01-10-2016, 10:36 PM
I have added the comments . My comment tracking number is 1k0-8nbf-c091

Comments added by my wife as well. Her tracking number 1k0-8nbf-n5os.

In addition 2 months ago we started a 50 Dollar monthly contribution to IV every month.
We plan to increase that to 100 soon. Thank you IV for your help.

right2niru
01-10-2016, 10:50 PM
Obama said one thing and did something else on right about everything during his 2 terms. See for yourself. This is the new low for politics which is suppose to be dirty.

How Obama failed to shut Washington's revolving door - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/barack-obama-revolving-door-lobbying-217042)

This explains what happened to EAD for I140 regulation.

Indeed ... shared on Social media ..

vikidisi
01-11-2016, 10:10 AM
What does "Current Law" mean?

IV can you shed some light?

It simply means, close to what the current law can allow. In other words, close to what we wanted it's initial intention to be - which is freedom from employers for those that have an approved LPR petition.

Flyingcrow
01-11-2016, 11:20 AM
It simply means, close to what the current law can allow. In other words, close to what we wanted it's initial intention to be - which is freedom from employers for those that have an approved LPR petition.

What I feel this means is, Administration fears there will be lawsuit and potentially no implementation of any relief if we stray too far from the current law even though DHS will have the authority to do it. So given the constraint I guess they have asked IV now to see if anything can be tweaked in the proposed rule closer to how it is now and the current law to provide additional or in my words true relief.

This is my interpretation alone.

kmrr
01-11-2016, 11:45 AM
I think of the same too..

I also have a fear that if they make rule for EAD for I140 without any compelling circumstances, then how long one should wait for the EAD? Because they are proposing a change in rule to eliminate the 90 days EAD temporary card, which will then make us to be in limbo again. For example, after applying for EAD in I140, while waiting for decision, if one doesn't renew H1B, then he or she cannot travel till EAD&AP is received. Remember, they already mentioned they don't have enough resources to process early AOS.

So I think we need to comment to not to eliminate the 90 days EAD card. This is just my interpretation I may be totally wrong.

Hanzra
01-11-2016, 12:00 PM
I see there are some comments in support of this regulation, looking at them I suspect employers are submitting them. Looks like someone from Desi consultancies.

look at these ones
Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008-0731)
Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008-0293)

I see this as another reason for all of us to keep commenting per IV guidance.

Please encourage your friends to comment. I see lot of ignorant friends who dont know this rule or just sitting on the sidelines and watching others to do something.

DMX17
01-11-2016, 12:04 PM
What I feel this means is, Administration fears there will be lawsuit and potentially no implementation of any relief if we stray too far from the current law even though DHS will have the authority to do it. So given the constraint I guess they have asked IV now to see if anything can be tweaked in the proposed rule closer to how it is now and the current law to provide additional or in my words true relief.

This is my interpretation alone.

Well if the OPT rule is of any importance, I think the court found STEM OPT itself in 2008 was within DHS regulatory authority and it was procedural deficiency and so they are doing a notice-and-comment rule (which the lawyers are supposedly optimistic about). But I have not been following that lawsuit. Guess what they did not have a problem in extending OPT, huh?

We are anyway doing the notice-and-comment for "AC21" reg. 1% of me says that is what Kevin meant in "provide comments when the rule is out". But I am not going to indulge in this wishful thinking and will wait for IV to provide guidance.

RandomizedPrecision
01-11-2016, 12:19 PM
What I feel this means is, Administration fears there will be lawsuit and potentially no implementation of any relief if we stray too far from the current law even though DHS will have the authority to do it. So given the constraint I guess they have asked IV now to see if anything can be tweaked in the proposed rule closer to how it is now and the current law to provide additional or in my words true relief.

This is my interpretation alone.

That's hogwash. If they think they have the authority to provide EAD and AP for undocumented and are open to defending them all the way to the supreme court then they should be willing to do the same (at the very least) for us.

I don't buy this bullshit about "fear of getting sued" - In this democracy the Govt gets sued left and right on wide ranging issues. If administrators feared lawsuits then they should not get into government in the first place.

Make just rules and defend them vigorously - that should be the way to go. Not this quiver-in-pants bullshit about being fearful of lawsuits!

kmrr
01-11-2016, 12:56 PM
Hi IV,

I donated $30 for 12 months to help you in your efforts.

Kudos and hats off for the efforts so far and I will try to increase my contribution in few months ahead.

messengerofgod
01-11-2016, 01:23 PM
NumbersUSA is watching IV. I am sure Chamber of Commerce and other employer groups are too.

Hope IV is very careful about what they say, better say nothing than risk having our opponents know what our strategy is: https://www.numbersusa.com/comment/150439#comment-150439

gblast
01-12-2016, 12:24 PM
I was reading on a different website that the format of the comments submitted doesn't look good. That, comments like that may be OK on social media, but have no place in the regulatory process of the United States and will be given little credit by DHS.

There was, also, a suggested format to post the comments. Do we need to re-think how we post our comments? Or probably blend the formats. I want to make sure our comments woudn't be discarded by DHS.

Thanks.

vikidisi
01-12-2016, 12:30 PM
I was reading on a different website that the format of the comments submitted doesn't look good. That, comments like that may be OK on social media, but have no place in the regulatory process of the United States and will be given little credit by DHS.

There was, also, a suggested format to post the comments. Do we need to re-think how we post our comments? Or probably blend the formats. I want to make sure our comments woudn't be discarded by DHS.

Thanks.

As suggested before, please do not get distracted by what other websites and / or lawyer forums are telling you. The comments provided now are an 'initial' set of comments. There will be additional rounds of commitments that go into individual technical details.

Check our FB post after the WH meeting and stay tuned for next steps.

gblast
01-12-2016, 12:41 PM
It was from a lawyer forum, indeed. Thank you.

nvedia
01-12-2016, 03:44 PM
It was from a lawyer forum, indeed. Thank you.

Time to fire out lawyers first followed by employers

vikidisi
01-12-2016, 04:49 PM
It was from a lawyer forum, indeed. Thank you.

Wondering why lawyers are not coming up with their own comments, instead of analyzing and criticizing ours?

essell
01-12-2016, 05:31 PM
Wondering why lawyers are not coming up with their own comments, instead of analyzing and criticizing ours?

One lawyer has put a draft here (http://immigrationgirl.com/draft-comment-for-high-skilled-immigrant-relief-i-140-ead-rule/)

essell
01-12-2016, 05:33 PM
Unrestricted I-140 EAD with travel capability
Ability to file the I-485 with a new employer without a new I-140 petition
However not sure if this is a Compelling format or not

DMX17
01-12-2016, 06:12 PM
One lawyer has put a draft here (http://immigrationgirl.com/draft-comment-for-high-skilled-immigrant-relief-i-140-ead-rule/)

There is an interesting discussion in the comments section between the author and a user (I am guessing is also a lawyer) on how I-140 EAD cannot be given under AC21, because AC21 gives "portability" only after 180 days of filing I-485. As such, congress has to do it.

I believe it is magical (or sinister) that the two rules (AC05 and AB97) have been merged as one under AC05 and effectively the original AC05 (older version) has been wiped out. So it was supposed to be a separate regulation and what a way to sabotage it!

On the issue of “IV misleading folks”, this is where lawyers will come in and throw crap using good language. Let me remind them the only “legal” looking document was leaked by Siskind. I now understand why there was a 1 year wait time for I-140 EAD in the leaked memo.

DMX17
01-12-2016, 06:33 PM
There is an interesting discussion in the comments section between the author and a user (I am guessing is also a lawyer) on how I-140 EAD cannot be given under AC21, because AC21 gives "portability" only after 180 days of filing I-485. As such, congress has to do it.

I believe it is magical (or sinister) that the two rules (AC05 and AB97) have been merged as one under AC05 and effectively the original AC05 (older version) has been wiped out. So it was supposed to be a separate regulation and what a way to sabotage it!

On the issue of “IV misleading folks”, this is where lawyers will come in and throw crap using good language. Let me remind them the only “legal” looking document was leaked by Siskind. I now understand why there was a 1 year wait time for I-140 EAD in the leaked memo.

In summary, I think there has to be TWO separate rules just like it was supposed to be. I am just thinking out loud in anger.:mad:

nvedia
01-12-2016, 10:34 PM
Commented -- 1k0-8ncr-qdff

I strongly oppose this rule. This rule is not in line with what was promised in Executive Action by Obama and gives no relief to legal immigrants. Legal immigrants are paying taxes and they really deserve to come out of this Slavery of having H1B extensions, not able to change jobs, being stuck with same employer for low salaries and hence impacting the American workers since we are low wage target for employers. Please give EAD to approved I140 without any conditions ...Thanks

maddy1234
01-13-2016, 12:12 AM
Your Comment Tracking Number: 1k0-8n8t-bylg ...

why does my comment is not seen yet? can I track status some where:?

.. I posted on 7 th Jan...

maddy1234
01-13-2016, 12:19 AM
I came across this in regulations.gov..Keep commenting guys...

Yes. Public participation matters. Democratic, legal, and management principles justify why public comments make a difference in regulatory policy. Public participation is an essential function of good governance. Participation enhances the quality of law and its realization through regulations (e.g. Rules). To learn more about public participation, view the fact sheet "Public Comments Make a Difference".

http://www.regulations.gov/docs/FactSheet_Public_Comments_Make_a_Difference.pdf

gnh
01-13-2016, 09:30 AM
There is an interesting discussion in the comments section between the author and a user (I am guessing is also a lawyer) on how I-140 EAD cannot be given under AC21, because AC21 gives "portability" only after 180 days of filing I-485. As such, congress has to do it.

I believe it is magical (or sinister) that the two rules (AC05 and AB97) have been merged as one under AC05 and effectively the original AC05 (older version) has been wiped out. So it was supposed to be a separate regulation and what a way to sabotage it!

On the issue of “IV misleading folks”, this is where lawyers will come in and throw crap using good language. Let me remind them the only “legal” looking document was leaked by Siskind. I now understand why there was a 1 year wait time for I-140 EAD in the leaked memo.

I was reading that too and now am kinda confused if EAD/AP for I-140 needs an act of congress or not . The rules are really confusing .

hil3182
01-13-2016, 09:52 AM
DHS has absolute discretionary authority under the law to give EAD + AP. This is why we have EAD in the regulation albeit under compelling circumstances. If DHS did not have the authority to do EAD + AP, then it would not be in the regulation in the first place?

This lawyer is obfuscating the following facts:

Thanks to AC-21 DHS must give EAD to people who have filed AoS.
DHS has discretionary authority to give EAD+AP for people stuck in backlog with approved I-140 i.e. they can give EAD+AP if they choose to - authority that they planned to use until it was watered down by the Chamber of Commerce lobbyist.



The facts of the matter are simple and as we presented them. I-140 EAD was happening until it got watered down by a Chamber of Commerce lobbyist. If you don't believe me - look at the paper trail created by every document that came out during the process.

See if you can find a recording of the USCIS "listening session" during early last year when Kevin Cummings openly said this is something they are considering and an issue up for debate was the delay between I-140 approval and EAD - they didn't even say that the EAD was up for debate - they said, the delay was being debated!


You are better off ignoring these useless lawyers - including the "template" responses they put up. They are scrambling to not alienate immigrants because if they do, they cannot pretend to be doing God's work.

nutcracker1
01-13-2016, 11:14 AM
I agree with IV on the lobbyist issue. This was clearly pointed out by IV on October 27th on their Facebook long before the proposed rule was published. And the issue happened exactly as per IV predictions. Shame on DHS and USCIS!

Immigration Voice October 27th Update On Facebook :

UPDATE on EAD for I-140 (Job Mobility regulation)
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 in around 15th November.
https://www.dropbox.com/…/USCIS_Memo_for_EAD_for_I140_June2…

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.
Thank you
Team IV

Ramalingam
01-13-2016, 11:19 AM
Entire green card process has the requirement that a permanent job should exist until the person gets green card and he expected to take that job. When the job vanishes he loses labor certification. This is to prevent displacement of American jobs.In 2000 Ac21 relaxed this that the similar job can exist in the other company. In H-EAD lawsuit DHS told point blank that DHS has authority to give EAD to anyone. But Judge did not accept that argument. Some from IV was there I think and was looking those arguments. In OPT EAD extension Judge intrepreted based on vague statements by the congress that DHS has Authority to give EAD under conditions. Of course that intrepretation was appealed in circuit court and entire H4-EAD ,OPT EAD extension even I140 EAD will be invalidated if circuit court intrepret differently. Again DHS has Authority to give EAD but with conditions imposed but again other law contradicts that the person loses the status when there is no similar job exist. Though there is a possibility that I140 watered down by a few of them some one might have given consideration of job requirements. Why H4-EAD not much strings attached but I140 they made so much restritive


DHS has absolute discretionary authority under the law to give EAD + AP. This is why we have EAD in the regulation albeit under compelling circumstances. If DHS did not have the authority to do EAD + AP, then it would not be in the regulation in the first place?

This lawyer is obfuscating the following facts:

Thanks to AC-21 DHS must give EAD to people who have filed AoS.
DHS has discretionary authority to give EAD+AP for people stuck in backlog with approved I-140 i.e. they can give EAD+AP if they choose to - authority that they planned to use until it was watered down by the Chamber of Commerce lobbyist.



The facts of the matter are simple and as we presented them. I-140 EAD was happening until it got watered down by a Chamber of Commerce lobbyist. If you don't believe me - look at the paper trail created by every document that came out during the process.

See if you can find a recording of the USCIS "listening session" during early last year when Kevin Cummings openly said this is something they are considering and an issue up for debate was the delay between I-140 approval and EAD - they didn't even say that the EAD was up for debate - they said, the delay was being debated!


You are better off ignoring these useless lawyers - including the "template" responses they put up. They are scrambling to not alienate immigrants because if they do, they cannot pretend to be doing God's work.

vikidisi
01-13-2016, 11:36 AM
I agree with IV on the lobbyist issue. This was clearly pointed out by IV on October 27th on their Facebook long before the proposed rule was published. And the issue happened exactly as per IV predictions. Shame on DHS and USCIS!

Immigration Voice October 27th Update On Facebook :

UPDATE on EAD for I-140 (Job Mobility regulation)
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 in around 15th November.
https://www.dropbox.com/…/USCIS_Memo_for_EAD_for_I140_June2…

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.
Thank you
Team IV


Thanks for sharing this

Administrator2
01-13-2016, 12:36 PM
Entire green card process has the requirement that a permanent job should exist until the person gets green card and he expected to take that job. When the job vanishes he loses labor certification. ............

This is not true, although that is what slimy immigration lawyers will have you believe. You are a human being, you are not a property of some company. You and thus your family should not be treated like a property of another human being.

When EB and H1 system was created, they were (still are) two independent systems. H1 is for getting someone for non-immigrant purpose (but with dual intent, meaning you could change to immigrant visa). EB Green card was for permanent job. Employer could (still can) apply for someone's EB green card even if that person is out of country and is not employed with that company for the entire duration of EB petition process.

Over the years, because of EB backlogs companies can not wait for someone to come here after 3-4 years. So the path the companies follow is, they file for H1/L1, get someone here, and then file for EB GC. But the system allows for EB application to be approved even when the beneficiary is in another country or when employee has never in the past worked for the petition employer or when the employee is not even working for the petitioning employer at the time of approval of the petition.

There is absolutely no law that says that you are required to work for the same employer during the time of EB process. But these fucking immigration lawyers want you to believe that they are doing you a service by protecting you from being able to live a free/change employers.

The current law also doesn't say that 485 has to be applied by the same/original petitioning employer (the one that applied Labor cert and I-140). There is no where in the law that has the requirement for the same employer to file for Labor, I-140 and I-485. But immigration lawyers will make you believe otherwise. That is why we despise these sleazy immigration lawyers.

There is a difference between "being an asset" and "being property". An employee is an asset to the employer. But employee is NOT a property of the employer. That system in which one human being is a property of another human being is called slavery. You can go look up the dictionary definition of slavery. And that system of slavery was abolished by Congress with 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865.

But the immigration lawyers will make you believe otherwise. They will make you believe that you are a slave and you and your family, your wife and children is lesser human being, as if they are are animals (and so they should be denied equal opportunities).

If anything, keeping immigrants less equal in the system ensures that immigrants are more attractive to employers over US workers. If immigrants have fewer rights then employer can have more control over immigrant worker. More control (for employer) means getting more work out of immigrant employees and paying immigrant employees lesser that what an American worker would make. So in a system where immigrants have fewer rights, there will be natural tendency of employers to desire more immigrant workers. And that is the the real reason for this pent-up demand for workers on H1B and L1. Obviously, this is what immigration lawyers want because if companies hire more immigrants, then lawyers get fresh meat to make money when filing their immigration paperwork for more new immigrants coming into US. Immigration lawyers don't want a fair system for immigrants or US workers. They just want more immigrants coming into the country because for immigration lawyers more immigrants equates to more fresh meat to make more money. It is that simple to understand.

That is why, we say again and again and again that DO NOT listen to immigration lawyers on policy matters. We all know the extent of exploitation in the industry. Immigration lawyer are well aware of the exploitation too. One would imagine that if immigration lawyers would want a fair system then you would expect them to speak up against the widely known and acknowledged exploitation of EB/H1/l1 immigrants. But have you ever seen any immigration lawyer blog/write/speak up against exploitation of H1/L1/EB immigrants? Has Siskind or other such lawyers who pretend to be saviors of immigrants, have they ever written anything to highlight the exploitation of EB/H1/L1 immigrants? Why not? The reason being, we think that, immigration lawyers don't want to disrupt the supply of fresh meat, otherwise that will disrupt their goal of making more money by filing immigration paper work for more new immigrants. The sooner our people understand this fact, the sooner they will speak up against this tyranny of companies and immigration lawyers. Even after living in the system for sometime and seeing how things function, if you still listen to immigration lawyers then the joke is not on IV, the joke is on you, because you and your families are the once living like a lesser human being (even though you don't realize it yet).

As long as immigrants continue to listen to immigration lawyers on policy matters, you will continue be your own worst enemy.

abcdgc
01-13-2016, 01:29 PM
Admin2,

We totally agree with you. Someone on another forum said that:

"IV is lacking marketing skill. I think their philosophy is, if someone is desperate for GC, he/she will join and work with IV actively and it is very difficult to convince a high skilled immigrant to join their organization."

wetfeet80
01-13-2016, 01:49 PM
Again DHS has Authority to give EAD but with conditions imposed but again other law contradicts that the person loses the status when there is no similar job exist

You are an absolute idiot Ramalingam. Your name is Rama but your karma are of Ravan. Where did you read in law that DHS has authority to give EAD with conditions? If so what are the conditions mentioned in that lawbook of yours? Do you know more than DHS who themselves are saying that they can give EAD to anyone.

The fact is that you have GC or may be citizenship in your hand but you lack enough skills under your belt. You are afraid to lose your job someday to a very junior EB-I person who will have freedom to change job with EAD. Admin unnecessarily wasted his time on a dumbnut like you. You dont deserve even 15 seconds of IV time.

One can look at your posts and find that all you do is come and throw some shit in sophisticated way and disappear for some time. You are worse than those who write negative things about IV or are lawyers bootlickers. Atleast they dont hide their intentions. Get lost, you dont belong here. Go and rile up your buddies at NumbersUSA. They are as dimwit as you. They think this I-40 EAD regulation will give EAD to everyone without realizing that giving EAD to everyone is going to benefit them most.

Administrator2
01-13-2016, 01:52 PM
Admin2,

We totally agree with you. Someone on another forum said that:

"IV is lacking marketing skill. I think their philosophy is, if someone is desperate for GC, he/she will join and work with IV actively and it is very difficult to convince a high skilled immigrant to join their organization."

First of all we don't care what people say on other forums. There is just too much noise there and very little real action.

And we don't think people understand the extent of the mess they are in. Some people seem to think IV is not providing good service, some say IV lack market skill and some say IV should work with lawyers.

You see, IV is not selling a product or service. We are merely speaking the truth and often truth is bitter and people don't like it, and they somehow reach a conclusion that IV is not providing good service. We think most people come from a place where they are used to getting serviced and folks have never participated in a political process to bring about change. Change is always messy. When deck is stacked against you and you are fighting against a cartel/mafia of the most well oiled machinery of immigration lawyers and large tech, and some handful of people expect being "serviced", these people don't know what is in store for them in next 20-30 years. But they will probably learn in time, when it will already too late for them.

We are not here to market IV. We have a simple platform based on truth. Our goal is to solve the problem immigrants go through in a system in which immigrants are exploited and Americans are discriminated against. This issue is not a fight between Immigrants v/s Americans. But often that is how lawyers or leftist media portrays. So most people (including some of the anti-immigrant organizations like NumbersUSA think that this issue is about Immigrants v/s Americans, which is not the case. The real issue is about being treated fairly and being able to live free. And when immigrants in EB system/H1/L1 will be able to live free, employers will no longer have the (wrong) incentive to hire immigrants over Americans. The real issue is right to live free and that is as fundamental as it can get. And IV need not market immigrants or anyone else about the lack of right to live free. We all live through that every day. Right to live free is paramount and supreme above every other right. And time and again history tells us that a man will go to any extent in order to live free. IV need not market this fact to anyone. We are all mature people. And for those who don't understand this issue, for them no amount "marketing" will do any good.

So if anyone thinks that IV is not providing a good service or that IV is not doing good marketing, they don't know what they are dealing with. But in time, they will know better. And there is nothing that we can do to speed up the process of their understanding.

Administrator2
01-13-2016, 01:58 PM
You are an absolute idiot Ramalingam. Your name is Rama but your karma are of Ravan. Where did you read in law that DHS has authority to give EAD with conditions? If so what are the conditions mentioned in that lawbook of yours? Do you know more than DHS who themselves are saying that they can give EAD to anyone.

The fact is that you have GC or may be citizenship in your hand but you lack enough skills under your belt. You are afraid to lose your job someday to a very junior EB-I person who will have freedom to change job with EAD. Admin unnecessarily wasted his time on a dumbnut like you. You dont deserve even 15 seconds of IV time.

One can look at your posts and find that all you do is come and throw some shit in sophisticated way and disappear for some time. You are worse than those who write negative things about IV or are lawyers bootlickers. Atleast they dont hide their intentions. Get lost, you dont belong here. Go and rile up your buddies at NumbersUSA. They are as dimwit as you. They think this I-40 EAD regulation will give EAD to everyone without realizing that giving EAD to everyone is going to benefit them most.

Actually, DHS has the authority to grant EAD and AP and they can define the parameters of the EAD. So that is true. Our beef with the existing regulation is that it did not do what they promised. DHS has the authority to do what they said they will do. But somewhere along the lines they went into a wrong direction.

DHS has the authority to decide who should get EAD. But President had announced that he will do whatever is legally permissible to allow immigrants to change jobs, get "portable work authorization" and let immigrants with approved immigration petition to change employers/jobs. That is what this regulation is about. And DHS certainly has the authority to do more. But DHS has not done "maximum permissible by law" as prescribed by the President. And that is the real issue here.

houston_boy
01-13-2016, 02:51 PM
Hi Admin

As per the IV facebook update, t was mentioned that "we are now working on a detailed plan to do our share to make this regulation closer to the current law".

What is the current law? Do you mean that as per the leaked memo?

Administrator2
01-13-2016, 03:22 PM
Hi Admin

As per the IV facebook update, t was mentioned that "we are now working on a detailed plan to do our share to make this regulation closer to the current law".

What is the current law? Do you mean that as per the leaked memo?

Memo is not law. Memo was created considering the "current law". So the ideas the memo are according to the "current law", but it is not "law" itself.

The purpose of putting in "current law" in that post was to tell everyone (not just IV members, but others like Hill staffers, Administration and idiot immigration lawyers etc) that EAD for I140 is within the the "current law", and that is what we want. And our ask is within the "current law".

There is a difference between regulation and laws. laws are created by Congress. Regulation is created by Executive body (i.e. Administration, agencies, departments). Regulations are merely interpretation of the existing laws. We are saying that fix for EAD + AP after I140 is within the current law. All regulations have to within the current law. We know that some sadistic people out there are trying to twist the meaning of "current law" to confuse people who don't know what this means. But you see, whenever you are asking for anything through regulation, you only help make your case stronger when you say that the changes you are seeking is within the "current law".

"Current law" is the entire Immigration and Naturalization Act. We believe that "current law" allows creating regulation that will grant EAD + AP to those with approved I140.

houston_boy
01-13-2016, 04:09 PM
Thanks admin for the detailed clarification.

Waiting for the detailed plan...

Flyingcrow
01-13-2016, 05:16 PM
Memo is not law. Memo was created considering the "current law". So the ideas the memo are according to the "current law", but it is not "law" itself.

The purpose of putting in "current law" in that post was to tell everyone (not just IV members, but others like Hill staffers, Administration and idiot immigration lawyers etc) that EAD for I140 is within the the "current law", and that is what we want. And our ask is within the "current law".

There is a difference between regulation and laws. laws are created by Congress. Regulation is created by Executive body (i.e. Administration, agencies, departments). Regulations are merely interpretation of the existing laws. We are saying that fix for EAD + AP after I140 is within the current law. All regulations have to within the current law. We know that some sadistic people out there are trying to twist the meaning of "current law" to confuse people who don't know what this means. But you see, whenever you are asking for anything through regulation, you only help make your case stronger when you say that the changes you are seeking is within the "current law".

"Current law" is the entire Immigration and Naturalization Act. We believe that "current law" allows creating regulation that will grant EAD + AP to those with approved I140.

Hi Admin

The confusion stemmed from the post after your meet with WH, actually this one
sentence. - "As an outcome of this meeting, we are now working on a detailed plan to do our share to make this regulation closer to the current law. "

What does closer to the current law mean? Is the current rule not closer to current law, or is this about as much wide it can get but closer to the current law, unlike how thin it is and is still closer to the current law.


Thanks

DMX17
01-13-2016, 07:03 PM
I don't mean to waste Admin's/Hil's time as I am sure they are busy with real work on behalf of all of us. No response required, just sharing for info only to other members. In fact, I appreciate more and more how IV leadership thought about this I-140 EAD/AP.

I could not find where does it say in the current law that the approved I-140 that is used as the basis for filing I-485 must be for the current employer? Maybe I am biased or do not know where the info really is hidden. If this part is answered in memo or reg, that reg can be changed.

Among other requirements (that we all meet), following are the criteria to apply I-485:

(a) Status as person admitted for permanent residence on application and eligibility for immigrant visa
The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if (1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and (3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1255"]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1255

The only contentious part is "Who is eligible to receive an immigrant visa?"
For that check this from USCIS:
https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/green-card-eligibility
Criteria:

• Be eligible for one of the immigrant categories established in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
• Have a qualifying immigrant petition filed and approved for you (with a few exceptions)
• Have an immigrant visa immediately available
• Be admissible to the United State

AC21 204(j) is not intended put a condition that I-140 is portable only after 180 days of filing I-485. On the contrary, it is a way to give freedom in case I-485 processing takes longer time than expected and they agreed that 6 months is good time. This is apparent from the title:


j)JOB FLEXIBILITY FOR LONG DELAYED APPLICANTS FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO PERMANENT RESIDENCE
A petition under subsection (a)(1)(D) 4 for an individual whose application for adjustment of status pursuant to section 1255 of this title has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days or more shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.

My point is, what we want (I-140 EAD + AP) does not have to fall under AC21 204(j) as we have not filed I-485 (which is the necessary pre-condition to invoke that benefit). That does not mean they cannot give other benefits BEFORE AC21 kicks in.

Maybe there is a way but there is no will.

buffbloke
01-13-2016, 07:19 PM
Maybe there is a way but there is no will.

This is the crux of the matter. Interpretation is in the eyes of the agency. Unfortunately those eyes are looking through the colored glasses tainted by the lawyer's and employers who do not want to see this happen.

It is remarkable that when it comes to any other type of immigration, especially illegal
immigration, we are asked to 'take a long view' and look at the 'broad picture' of human suffering etc. But when it comes to legal immigration and adapting even the most basic sensible interpretations, everyone starts quoting the wording and the fine print conveniently ignoring the fact that we are not 'assets' but educated slaves driving down the wages of the marketplace.

DMX17
01-13-2016, 07:51 PM
This is the crux of the matter. Interpretation is in the eyes of the agency. Unfortunately those eyes are looking through the colored glasses tainted by the lawyer's and employers who do not want to see this happen.



True. If you read one of the blogs of the two buddy lawyers on this regulation, he is "insightfully" saying that it is difficult to conceptualize how one with an approved I-140 who has not filed I-485 can port to another employer without a new labor/I-140. In other words, without filing 485, there is no way other than re-start GC process.

To me this is misleading people to think that "even a well-known famous lawyer does not think this is possible within the current law". The immigrants, who have littie idea about the laws, rely on such blogs to make their opinions, while many bootlickers sayg "wah wah". This is where he got them by the balls while showing rainbow of "early 485 filing" which failed already!

Hope people do not follow these lawyers who do not themselves know who they are cheating.

Administrator2
01-13-2016, 07:55 PM
......What does closer to the current law mean? Is the current rule not closer to current law.....

Thanks

No, this regulation doesn't make it closer to the current law. In fact it takes it further from the current law. Why should anyone maintain EAD and H1B? Have you ever seen any other case in the INA that requires you to keep 2 documents?

Our solution will take the system closer to the current law. That is why our solution is better.

BABUG
01-13-2016, 08:23 PM
Obama Just said "Broken Immigration System" May be in the state of Union if he know about this he would Call this as "Corrupted Immigration System", We Need EAD + AP nothing short of that.

nvedia
01-13-2016, 08:47 PM
If somebody wins the powerball today, they can help fund the lobbyists in our case :)

greyhair
01-13-2016, 09:12 PM
If somebody wins the powerball today, they can help fund the lobbyists in our case :)

I agree, I pledge will give IV $5 million if I win Powerball today :)

Bhishma
01-13-2016, 09:35 PM
Our solution will take the system closer to the current law. That is why our solution is better.

With all due respect, when can we see this solution as a regulation? Will it be the final rule?

greenappletx
01-13-2016, 09:36 PM
Thanks IV for all the great work and detailed explanation.

Do we get any positive outcome from a meeting at the WH? Do you think our comments helps to change the final version and get an EAD AP.
As per ur experience, when we land with EAD AP?
Just waiting with finger crossed.
Thanks again

d.kiran
01-13-2016, 11:25 PM
I always wondered why IV was so impatient, maybe even rude, in their forums. I have been active for what, about 3 months now and I am finding it pretty hard to keep calm at the kind of questions that I see here.

Now, I have not been involved on the ground with IV, but I think generally people need to understand these things are never simple yes or no answers.

If your question is a variation of "Will we see EAD+AP as part of the discussion at White House" "Will your solution be the final solution" "Will our comments revoke the rule and grant us freedom" "Will this happen by the end of the year", the correct answer is "It is hard to know".

Again, I do not have any inside information, but based on how reality works, think of it as a Chess game. Everyone is making moves and everyone wants to win. We know that we want to win, but it is not a straight line. IV and everyone else for that matter can make a move based on what moves has been made so far.

IV thought that we would get EAD+AP based on their previous work, then CoC played a move that caused a bit of damage, so IV now has to change strategy. Again this is a setback, so IV has to take a step back and calculate next moves. Based on what IV does, the other players will decide how to react. IV is trying to attack it from different angles. Asking everyone to comment negatively is one, working with WH is another. Each of these is designed to increase the probability of success, not guarantee it.

We don't know who is going to win, however, what we know is that other players have a lot more time and money. From what I have seen IV has been playing well so far despite being an underdog. It is up to us to at least help IV have enough resources to take on the heavyweights. IV is asking for $21,000/month which is $252,000 per year. For comparison, the CEO of CoC made $4.6 million in 2011, and in all likelihood much higher now. We are looking at orders of magnitude between IV and CoC, but IV is focused on one single issue alone and that is allowing us to live free.

And I think most people have to understand that they have to contribute even if IV eventually does not get the results we all hope for, simply because no one else is fighting in the same field. Everyone is in their forums thinking why we don't tweet someone or email someone without understanding why that cannot work (For e.g. the latest one doing the rounds, is can we ask Nikki Haley).

Also this game is not just a two player chess. It is more like a four player chess (DHS, CoC, White House, IV and maybe more) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-player_chess) where there are multiple players each with their own end game in mind. Remember, for IV to win, someone has to lose, so you can expect them to fight back with guns blazing.

It is up to each of us to make sure we at least give IV a fighting chance. IV would be very happy, if you can meet with your congressmen and be the boots on the ground. If you cannot do that, at the very least, you can go to http://donations.immigrationvoice.org and pitch in.

You're not doing it for IV, you're doing for yourself and your family.

DMX17
01-13-2016, 11:42 PM
Our solution will take the system closer to the current law. That is why our solution is better.

I am convinced and trust we are on the right track.

And that solution should have been there since long time ago, but thanks to the damn lawyers the system was broken, as backlog grew, to their benefit in GC renewals and h1 extensions.

I found a submission by AILF and AILA (called Matter of Neto)

AC21 H1b Visas - Immigration Judges Given Needed Discretion in Deportation of Employm [Archive] - Immigration Voice (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-1050191.html)

Notable things from that:

USCIS has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate a visa petition. INA § 204(b). An approved petition remains valid indefinitely unless DOL invalidates the labor
certification, the employer or beneficiary dies, the employer withdraws the petition, the employer’s business terminates, or there is another ground to revoke the petition. 8


In the brief thay mention that an approved I-140 remains valid indefinitely unless revoked. The eligibility to file I-485 is an approved I-140 (without reference to current or prevoius or future employer).


Adjustment of Status
Congress authorized certain noncitizens who are present in the United States, including those employed by American employers pursuant to valid nonimmigrant status,
to apply to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residents. INA §§ 245, 214. One requirement for adjustment is that the applicant must be “eligible to receive an immigrant visa.” INA § 245(a)(2). A noncitizen is “eligible to receive an immigrant visa” if he or she is the beneficiary of an approved visa petition that remains valid.


Since the regulation takes away the employer ability to revoke, that same I-140 technically can be used to file I-485 no matter you don't work for the employer who gave you that I-140. The condition is that you and employer have the intent to work/employ at the time of I-140 approval.

rupen
01-14-2016, 09:14 AM
I always wondered why IV was so impatient, maybe even rude, in their forums. I have been active for what, about 3 months now and I am finding it pretty hard to keep calm at the kind of questions that I see here.

Now, I have not been involved on the ground with IV, but I think generally people need to understand these things are never simple yes or no answers.

If your question is a variation of "Will we see EAD+AP as part of the discussion at White House" "Will your solution be the final solution" "Will our comments revoke the rule and grant us freedom" "Will this happen by the end of the year", the correct answer is "It is hard to know".

Again, I do not have any inside information, but based on how reality works, think of it as a Chess game. Everyone is making moves and everyone wants to win. We know that we want to win, but it is not a straight line. IV and everyone else for that matter can make a move based on what moves has been made so far.

IV thought that we would get EAD+AP based on their previous work, then CoC played a move that caused a bit of damage, so IV now has to change strategy. Again this is a setback, so IV has to take a step back and calculate next moves. Based on what IV does, the other players will decide how to react. IV is trying to attack it from different angles. Asking everyone to comment negatively is one, working with WH is another. Each of these is designed to increase the probability of success, not guarantee it.

We don't know who is going to win, however, what we know is that other players have a lot more time and money. From what I have seen IV has been playing well so far despite being an underdog. It is up to us to at least help IV have enough resources to take on the heavyweights. IV is asking for $21,000/month which is $252,000 per year. For comparison, the CEO of CoC made $4.6 million in 2011, and in all likelihood much higher now. We are looking at orders of magnitude between IV and CoC, but IV is focused on one single issue alone and that is allowing us to live free.

And I think most people have to understand that they have to contribute even if IV eventually does not get the results we all hope for, simply because no one else is fighting in the same field. Everyone is in their forums thinking why we don't tweet someone or email someone without understanding why that cannot work (For e.g. the latest one doing the rounds, is can we ask Nikki Haley).

Also this game is not just a two player chess. It is more like a four player chess (DHS, CoC, White House, IV and maybe more) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-player_chess) where there are multiple players each with their own end game in mind. Remember, for IV to win, someone has to lose, so you can expect them to fight back with guns blazing.

It is up to each of us to make sure we at least give IV a fighting chance. IV would be very happy, if you can meet with your congressmen and be the boots on the ground. If you cannot do that, at the very least, you can go to http://donations.immigrationvoice.org and pitch in.

You're not doing it for IV, you're doing for yourself and your family.

Nicely put

DMX17
01-14-2016, 11:26 AM
One lawyer has put a draft here (http://immigrationgirl.com/draft-comment-for-high-skilled-immigrant-relief-i-140-ead-rule/)

I am famous:D and have probably hurt the ego of an all knowing lawyer in the link above! I encourage all to read as that person is pure anti-immigrant and anti-IV.

The below is addressed to that person:

The same lawyer responded to me on the link above and while at it yet again conflated AC21 204(j) with what we are seeking. Gotta love it when all lawyer onions are the same (but wrong) on what 204(j) meant. It was NOT meant to prove that I-140 is only portable after 180 days of I-485 filing. It is just adadressing the issue of "LONG DELAY" in Adjustment of Status. Get it? Shall I point you to your lawyer buddies from AILA who have argued the same (when it benefits them)?

I-140 portability that all immigrants "were promised" is before they file I-485 and hence 204(j) does not even come into picture. Get it? Read the plain language title of 204(j). Thanks all of you bastards for twisting the “congressional intent”.

The REASON (only one reason) is known and you have rightly pointed out in your own comment that you want us to "port" H-1Bs. How much is you fees? :D

Finally, thank you for proving yet again that immigration lawyers are the real enemies of immigrants stuck in backlog.

Please do not delete your post there!

sundeepreddym
01-14-2016, 11:58 AM
Kiran - Very well summarized.

I always wondered why IV was so impatient, maybe even rude, in their forums. I have been active for what, about 3 months now and I am finding it pretty hard to keep calm at the kind of questions that I see here.

Now, I have not been involved on the ground with IV, but I think generally people need to understand these things are never simple yes or no answers.

If your question is a variation of "Will we see EAD+AP as part of the discussion at White House" "Will your solution be the final solution" "Will our comments revoke the rule and grant us freedom" "Will this happen by the end of the year", the correct answer is "It is hard to know".

Again, I do not have any inside information, but based on how reality works, think of it as a Chess game. Everyone is making moves and everyone wants to win. We know that we want to win, but it is not a straight line. IV and everyone else for that matter can make a move based on what moves has been made so far.

IV thought that we would get EAD+AP based on their previous work, then CoC played a move that caused a bit of damage, so IV now has to change strategy. Again this is a setback, so IV has to take a step back and calculate next moves. Based on what IV does, the other players will decide how to react. IV is trying to attack it from different angles. Asking everyone to comment negatively is one, working with WH is another. Each of these is designed to increase the probability of success, not guarantee it.

We don't know who is going to win, however, what we know is that other players have a lot more time and money. From what I have seen IV has been playing well so far despite being an underdog. It is up to us to at least help IV have enough resources to take on the heavyweights. IV is asking for $21,000/month which is $252,000 per year. For comparison, the CEO of CoC made $4.6 million in 2011, and in all likelihood much higher now. We are looking at orders of magnitude between IV and CoC, but IV is focused on one single issue alone and that is allowing us to live free.

And I think most people have to understand that they have to contribute even if IV eventually does not get the results we all hope for, simply because no one else is fighting in the same field. Everyone is in their forums thinking why we don't tweet someone or email someone without understanding why that cannot work (For e.g. the latest one doing the rounds, is can we ask Nikki Haley).

Also this game is not just a two player chess. It is more like a four player chess (DHS, CoC, White House, IV and maybe more) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-player_chess) where there are multiple players each with their own end game in mind. Remember, for IV to win, someone has to lose, so you can expect them to fight back with guns blazing.

It is up to each of us to make sure we at least give IV a fighting chance. IV would be very happy, if you can meet with your congressmen and be the boots on the ground. If you cannot do that, at the very least, you can go to http://donations.immigrationvoice.org and pitch in.

You're not doing it for IV, you're doing for yourself and your family.

Bhishma
01-14-2016, 02:30 PM
I am famous:D
Please do not delete your post there!

Can we expect a show "Keeping up with DMX17" any time soon?

DMX17
01-14-2016, 02:39 PM
Can we expect a show "Keeping up with DMX17" any time soon?

Using her words, let's call the show "Keeping up with Poor DMX". I am opening a new thread.

ROFL_Ghonchu
01-14-2016, 02:46 PM
From the language, Riley looks like ine of the minions. Poor soul doesn't even know how far the concept of increasing green card even by "ONE" goes in the republican controlled House.

essell
01-14-2016, 03:22 PM
Using her words, let's call the show "Keeping up with Poor DMX". I am opening a new thread.

Good one :)

In same thread we should club with comments from other lawyers too ... see if u can rename to make it generic. (to handle all Immigration Lawyer comment analysis).

DMX17
01-14-2016, 03:32 PM
Good one :)

In same thread we should club with comments from other lawyers too ... see if u can rename to make it generic. (to handle all Immigration Lawyer comment analysis).

There is nothing to analyze. All others are repeating the same mantra just like this parrot with name Riley.

We see here a classic example of what the lawyers must be telling in DC "Oh don't worry about these H-1B folks, they can happily port since AC21 and they are making more money than Americans in similar occupation". And I did not even have to make any trip to DC to learn this first hand.

essell
01-14-2016, 03:41 PM
We see here a classic example of what the lawyers must be telling in DC "Oh don't worry about these H-1B folks, they can happily port since AC21 and they are making more money than Americans in similar occupation". And I did not even have to make any trip to DC to learn this first hand.

Yes ...these are the words used. Recently, when we were in DC telling our story about the financial loss due to the VB reversal...sensed this argument planted by immigration lawyers & company lobbyists (so that we don't get sympathy on the Hill).

stocks123
01-14-2016, 07:40 PM
http://www.law360.com/immigration/a...ter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=immigration

Some lawyers are still saying 140EAD is not possible using regulation and needs to be changed by congress

“And so, in one sense, after Congress created that elaborate scheme, to grant an [employment authorization document] simply upon approval of the I-140 may appear to undermine that carefully constructed scheme,”

rohan_vus123
01-14-2016, 08:07 PM
http://www.law360.com/immigration/a...ter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=immigration

Some lawyers are still saying 140EAD is not possible using regulation and needs to be changed by congress

“And so, in one sense, after Congress created that elaborate scheme, to grant an [employment authorization document] simply upon approval of the I-140 may appear to undermine that carefully constructed scheme,”

There is a reason why that **** site is 360 degree ...they twist the logic 360 degree just as they want you to believe . Time to give a grt kick in their a** to these slimy bastards ..
These guys always utter things when it comes to legal immigration which means they are always active on such matters .. But inspite of being so super active and working for immigrants as they claim , then why the heck things went from bad to worse right under their nose ?? Any guess ? -- Its all because lawyers , Giskinds and likes are out there to make money out of your misery and would purposely twist things to keep their business interests intact ..
Just read the thread that DMX has posted Keeping up with Rich Riley - Immigration Voice (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/3096666-keeping-up-with-rich-riley.html) .... Its time you , me and all of us learn to discern ground reality from so called fake compassion from immigration lawyers

Administrator2
01-14-2016, 08:25 PM
http://www.law360.com/immigration/a...ter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=immigration

Some lawyers are still saying 140EAD is not possible using regulation and needs to be changed by congress

“And so, in one sense, after Congress created that elaborate scheme, to grant an [employment authorization document] simply upon approval of the I-140 may appear to undermine that carefully constructed scheme,”

Absolutely, this lawyer must be right, because why would congress create an entire set of laws to make sure that immigrants with approved immigration petition should not get EADs BUT UNDOCUMENTED WITH NO PAPERWORK SHOULD GET EADs.

Maybe you need to lookup the opinion about this lawyer about DACA and DAPA. The same bunch of bastards would be fine with giving EADs to undocumented. Go ask quoting them

And so, in one sense, after Congress created that elaborate scheme, to grant an [employment authorization document] simply upon ILLEGAL ARRIVAL may appear to undermine that carefully constructed scheme"


That is why we say again and again that lawyers are slimy. They will use some interpretation of the law to ensure they make more money. If lawyers make more money from EAD for undocumented, then they will say law allows EADs. If they don't want LEGAL immigrants to slip away from their grip, they will say "law doesn't allow". These fucking bastards want to make sure you live like a slave for rest of your life.

If you would one of the following category then you would not be a property of your employer:

1.) Immigrants from Africa - Congressional Black caucus would be up in arms to draw parallel to slavery
2.) Jewish - Coz both Rs and Ds would draw parallel to persecution
3.) Hispanics - Congressional Hispanic caucus would be up in arms and Members of Congress would be fielding arrest
4.) Same sex partners

If you would be in any of the above 4 categories, one of the two parties will treat you as they treat their first new born child. But if you are Indians of Chinese immigrants, for both Ds and Rs, you have no reason to be treated better than this.

The only reason why are property of your employer in a system is because you are either Chinese or Indian immigrant. No one cares for you. So there is discrimination in the system by both Ds and Rs just because you are Indians and Chinese.

Rather large group of immigration lawyers and companies profit from your inability to change jobs. In fact there is an entire industry that functions just cause you are property of your employer. So what else do you expect from this lawyer? Obviously he profits from you being in the backlog isn't it. maybe that the reason why this lawyer has that opinion. Ask him would he have the same opinion if he or his daughter/son was stuck in the backlog with approved I-140?

So this "opinion" is bunch of baloney and nonsense. Maybe this is all just too much reality for one evening.

DMX17
01-14-2016, 08:27 PM
http://www.law360.com/immigration/a...ter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=immigration

Some lawyers are still saying 140EAD is not possible using regulation and needs to be changed by congress

“And so, in one sense, after Congress created that elaborate scheme, to grant an [employment authorization document] simply upon approval of the I-140 may appear to undermine that carefully constructed scheme,”

This one has all of the impostors in one single blog. With a few showing their elephant teeth while in slow motion chewing on the prospects of even more fees with real teeth.

Maybe miss Rich Riley felt left out from this spot light so started responding on IV comments.

kaca
01-14-2016, 11:32 PM
Some important points from
https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/

Develop a citizenship program that better serves Americans. Part of the problem with our current immigration system is that it no longer serves the American people. Many view it as a global-relief program. Priorities are given to people who come here illegally. National values and security are subordinated to political motives. A Cruz Administration will pursue legislation that would create a points-based immigration system to prioritize those who aspire to achieve the American Dream and will best contribute to the advancement and prosperity of our society. This legislation would evaluate the following factors:
Formal education or training
Valuable professional experience or trade skills
Resources available to invest or create jobs
Lifetime earning potential
Civilian public service or military skills
Language skills
Ties to the United States
Other skills, resources, or attributes that contribute to our nation
__________________________________________________ ____________
Suspend companies from H-1B visa eligibility for failure to help foreign workers obtain green cards: Many companies misuse the H-1B visa program to train foreign workers that they intend to send back overseas to compete with America. The law must impose additional requirements on employers to pursue Legal Permanent Resident status on behalf of their H-1B visa-based foreign workers, or risk loss of access to the program.
__________________________________________________ _______________________
End diversity visas: Eliminate the 50,000 “diversity” visas that are premised neither on skill nor family, but are distributed at random based solely on the race or nationality of an applicant.

Bhishma
01-15-2016, 12:21 AM
Some important points from
https://www.tedcruz.org/cruz-immigration-plan/

Develop a citizenship program that better serves Americans. Part of the problem with our current immigration system is that it no longer serves the American people. Many view it as a global-relief program. Priorities are given to people who come here illegally. National values and security are subordinated to political motives. A Cruz Administration will pursue legislation that would create a points-based immigration system to prioritize those who aspire to achieve the American Dream and will best contribute to the advancement and prosperity of our society. This legislation would evaluate the following factors:
Formal education or training
Valuable professional experience or trade skills
Resources available to invest or create jobs
Lifetime earning potential
Civilian public service or military skills
Language skills
Ties to the United States
Other skills, resources, or attributes that contribute to our nation
__________________________________________________ ____________
Suspend companies from H-1B visa eligibility for failure to help foreign workers obtain green cards: Many companies misuse the H-1B visa program to train foreign workers that they intend to send back overseas to compete with America. The law must impose additional requirements on employers to pursue Legal Permanent Resident status on behalf of their H-1B visa-based foreign workers, or risk loss of access to the program.
__________________________________________________ _______________________
End diversity visas: Eliminate the 50,000 “diversity” visas that are premised neither on skill nor family, but are distributed at random based solely on the race or nationality of an applicant.

We should all be thankful to Ted Cruz and his team for such a nice immigration plan. Any plan that puts displaced American workers ahead in their priorities is a definite winner.
I wish Ted Cruz and his team all the best.

racoon786
01-15-2016, 01:02 AM
This one has all of the impostors in one single blog. With a few showing their elephant teeth while in slow motion chewing on the prospects of even more fees with real teeth.

Maybe miss Rich Riley felt left out from this spot light so started responding on IV comments.

Looks like those douches took down the link. Mr. or Ms. Riley is a liar, so no surprise at his/her comments quoting stature and calling people entitled. How about you go read bill of rights first and make sure you understand them before spewing crap like that again.

right2niru
01-15-2016, 01:08 AM
We should all be thankful to Ted Cruz and his team for such a nice immigration plan. Any plan that puts displaced American workers ahead in their priorities is a definite winner.
I wish Ted Cruz and his team all the best.

+1 , finally following Australian / Canadian points system , however i would take it with a pinch of salt considering this is an election year and every candidate would like to get attention in all possible ways and one would never know if this would ever get implemented - nevertheless great thought and best wishes in good interest from Texas !

kaca
01-15-2016, 01:24 PM
I think Republicans are more supportive of Legal Immigration than Democrats.
Even HR 213's sponsor Jason Chaffetz is a Republican.
The whole immigration reform got derailed because Democrats wanted to fix the Illegal Immigration along with Legal Immigration. Else by this time most of the reforms might have been passed.
We need to see how to get to Paul Ryan for his support to bring HR 213 to the floor.
I hope something can be done before the 114th Congress comes to an end in a year.

bob4gc
01-15-2016, 02:46 PM
Just curious, as rule making process, can DHS/USCIS update the current regulation based on the comments (like removal of compelling circumstances etc.) and then resubmit (to OMB?) and call for public comments again? or should it happen only in next NEW regulation (possibly after withdrawing the current one), assuming USCIS considers our concerns/comments?

vikidisi
01-15-2016, 03:04 PM
Just curious, as rule making process, can DHS/USCIS update the current regulation based on the comments (like removal of compelling circumstances etc.) and then resubmit (to OMB?) and call for public comments again? or should it happen only in next NEW regulation (possibly after withdrawing the current one), assuming USCIS considers our concerns/comments?

This one comment period is all we have.

bob4gc
01-15-2016, 03:23 PM
This one comment period is all we have.
Thanks viki. But do they add/modify/remove the text of regulation after replying to all our comments post- comment period? Like all of us, I'd like to see compelling circumstances and other adverse clauses deleted.

vikidisi
01-15-2016, 03:30 PM
Thanks viki. But do they add/modify/remove the text of regulation after replying to all our comments post- comment period? Like all of us, I'd like to see compelling circumstances and other adverse clauses deleted.


Yup - which is the goal of the commenting period. Very important to continue posting comments and encourage others to post as well. Also stay tuned for the next set of comments that IV will provide that will go into the technical details.

devndev
01-15-2016, 03:30 PM
I think Republicans are more supportive of Legal Immigration than Democrats.
Even HR 213's sponsor Jason Chaffetz is a Republican.
The whole immigration reform got derailed because Democrats wanted to fix the Illegal Immigration along with Legal Immigration. Else by this time most of the reforms might have been passed.
We need to see how to get to Paul Ryan for his support to bring HR 213 to the floor.
I hope something can be done before the 114th Congress comes to an end in a year.

Yes, there are a handful of good republicans, but the vast majority will only do what benefits their corporate sponsors.. Please note that Chamber of Commerce who just pissed all over the EAD regulation is a republican/conservative organization.. Also take a note of what stand the current leading Republican presidential candidates are having to take regarding immigration in general - which reflects the nativist nature of their base..

Administrator2
01-15-2016, 03:35 PM
Comments are important. But if anyone put in comments like "I support regulation but can you change blah blah..." such comments are useless.

No one is seeking your support. But they will read your comments more carefully if you say "I oppose in the current format because of blah bhah, and here is how to fix it blah blah"....

LogicalImmigrant
01-15-2016, 04:08 PM
I oppose this rule.
If PERM and i-140 is approved for a non-immigrant but cannot file i-485 because the immigrant visa number is not available - Whose fault is this?

If DHS/USCIS cannot issue immigrant visas even if the personnel fully qualify and go through the required procedure, why would DHS/USCIS accept multiple (PERM, i-140 etc.) application fee and let them wait in the backlogs for more than a decade? Is this not called INTELLECTUAL SLAVERY?

If DHS/USCIS cannot issue immigrant visas, please stop accepting the applications and raise hopes in the applicant life.

What good is this rule doing? Retaining the priority date? That is the starting point of the vicious cycle on which the unethical employers and immigration attorney are feeding on.

FIRST STOP THIS VICIOUS CYCLE BY PROVIDING EAD AND ADVANCE PAROLE if you cannot issue immigrant visas for the qualified applicants because they deserve it more than you think and provide them certainty in life.

Isn't America a nation founded by immigrants? If this is a fact, please heal this nation by removing all the strings("compelling reasons") attached to this regulation and setting the lobbyists, unethical employers, unethical lawyers straight. In turn we can teach our kids the same.

God Bless America!

Logical Immigrant

LogicalImmigrant
01-15-2016, 04:14 PM
I oppose this rule.
If PERM and i-140 is approved for a non-immigrant but cannot file i-485 because the immigrant visa number is not available - Whose fault is this?

If DHS/USCIS cannot issue immigrant visas even if the personnel fully qualify and go through the required procedure, why would DHS/USCIS accept multiple (PERM, i-140 etc.) application fee and let them wait in the backlogs for more than a decade? Is this not called INTELLECTUAL SLAVERY?

If DHS/USCIS cannot issue immigrant visas, please stop accepting the applications and raise hopes in the applicant life.

What good is this rule doing? Retaining the priority date? That is the starting point of the vicious cycle on which the unethical employers and immigration attorney are feeding on.

FIRST STOP THIS VICIOUS CYCLE BY PROVIDING EAD AND ADVANCE PAROLE if you cannot issue immigrant visas for the qualified applicants because they deserve it more than you think and provide them certainty in life.

Isn't America a nation founded by immigrants? If this is a fact, please heal this nation by removing all the strings("compelling reasons") attached to this regulation and setting the lobbyists, unethical employers, unethical lawyers straight. In turn we can teach our kids the same.

God Bless America!

Logical Immigrant

One of the 7 comments that I have posted till now. I don't know if this will do any good for us, but I feel its a good way to remove some of the frustration.

Ramalingam
01-16-2016, 12:07 AM
Just curious, as rule making process, can DHS/USCIS update the current regulation based on the comments (like removal of compelling circumstances etc.) and then resubmit (to OMB?) and call for public comments again? or should it happen only in next NEW regulation (possibly after withdrawing the current one), assuming USCIS considers our concerns/comments?
Based on all the efforts the regulation should be changed. The following are happening
1. The opposing comments in this is overwhelming in this regulation which is unprecedented. If they consider all the comments then the regulation could be changed unless they want to cancel the regulation itself.

2. IV was invited by WH immigration team. So there is chance to tell the concerns of immigration community

3. IV is planning to hire lobbyists. So it is possible lobby with WH immigration team and eventually with DHS.

So based on the above there is a best chance that regulation can be fixed

saviontly
01-16-2016, 07:35 AM
I reject this rule as it doesn't solve any of the current problems of workers like me who are on I 140 and in USA for past 9 years.

Every time I need to look for a better opportunity I need to find an employer who would sponsor H1 visas and need to start my green card all over again.

Employers who sponsor H1 visas can always hire people for a lot less pay than US citizen workers. This unfairly benefits the employers and puts US workers and long time employees in US with I 140 like me at a hopeless position.

Change this joke of a rule which benefits no one except the employers, immigration lawyers and the lobbyists who collectively formed as a syndicate to water down to this rule so that people like me remain on H1 visas for the remaining of our lives and they earn profits by paying lesser wages (employers), H1 visa filing fees (lawyers).

Compelling circumstances clause is so restrictive that hardly anyone benefits for this rule. It should be removed or more liberal by including anyone who has elapsed 6 years of H1 as a compelling circumstance to get EAD.

Why should this EAD be any different from the Employment Based EAD?

palciparum
01-16-2016, 11:17 AM
8,369 comments received so far. Lot of comments from Desis and US workers oppose the rule.

Will this rule be Cancelled with such opposition? or will it be modified as we still need to specifically say what we want from rule to fix the problem?

I agree with Administrator's post ...."I oppose in the current format because of blah bhah, and here is how to fix it blah blah"....

Every one says I oppose the rule but we need text to say I oppose rule in its current format and We need this to FIX the rule .... we need those comments from IV to say exactly what we need.

I am deeply disappointed by seeing monetary support so far...$10,200. We don't mind raising $25,000 for GS in less that 2 days but we can have 800-1000 people on phone call and not raise money. We all spend money on various things and expect someone else to pick up our Tab for this fix.

I wish and hope something will come out of this rule if all of us working together.

Thanks IV for all your efforts.

puneet2k5
01-17-2016, 05:21 PM
When would IV send out the suggestions for the second round of comments??

iwantgreencar
01-19-2016, 06:39 AM
Hi all ,

Thanks IV for leading us in the battle.
I am considering making a payment too .
I have a question to the community .
I know a lot us are waiting on HR213 to take out the numerical limitation for India and China and that would be a Great Leap Forward for to reduce our back log.

The recent proposals clearly talks about that in the below section ?
Is that not a great step and going to do us a great help ?

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/12/31/2015-32666/retention-of-eb-1-eb-2-and-eb-3-immigrant-workers-and-program-improvements-affecting-high-skilled#h-24

Section
E. The Increasing Damage Caused by Immigrant Visa Backlogs
"Since AC21 was enacted in October of 2000, workers seeking LPR status in the United States—particularly within the EB-2 and EB-3 preference categories—have faced increasing challenges as a consequence of the escalating wait times for immigrant visas. It often takes many years before an immigrant visa number becomes available. For some, the delays can last more than a decade. The combination of numerical limitations in the various employment-based preference categories with the per-country limitations that further limit visa availability to certain workers, has produced significant oversubscription in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories, particularly for Indian and Chinese nationals. For instance, the current approximate backlog for an EB-3 immigrant visa for workers from most countries is only a few months. For nationals of certain countries applying in the EB-3 category, delays have extended more than a decade. [30]"

prasadjoglekar
01-19-2016, 07:41 AM
Hi all ,
I know a lot us are waiting on HR213 to take out the numerical limitation for India and China and that would be a Great Leap Forward for to reduce our back log.

The recent proposals clearly talks about that in the below section ?
Is that not a great step and going to do us a great help ?


HR213 would be a Great Leap, but the current proposal is not a great step. The proposed rule doesn't change much of the current status quo. It certainly talks about the problems, but the "proposals" to fix those problems are non-existent.

The rest of this thread, particularly admin's template response explain why, with examples and considerable context.

4WatItsWorth
01-19-2016, 10:45 AM
This is what I submitted but I do not know if it will show. The earlier one I submitted does not show in comments.

============
I am on H1-B with an approved I-140 immigrant petition and I oppose the rule in the current format.

Why I oppose -
I have been in the USA on H1-B for more than nine years with an immigrant petition (I-140) approved since 2009 but stuck in backlogs due to being from a country and category (EB-2) that is severely back logged. The rule does not help me much. It appears that the intent of the rule is to keep me on H1-B forever and rather than providing job portability, and letting me amalgamate in the workforce with job portability and ability to travel in/out of the country easily. This looks unlike what the president's executive action seemed to mean which I think said, "...provide portable job authorization" -- which should mean an EAD (and AP).

What I think should be done instead -
In my opinion, the rule should be formulated to provide EAD and AP to people like me who have an immigration petition (I-140) approved (but are just stuck in backlogs).

Adverse consequences of this rule in the current format-
In my opinion, keeping employees on H1-B for a long-long time instead of providing them with EAD, AP, leads to employee exploitation, artificial loyalty to the employer, depressed wages and thus displacing American workers.
=======================

RandomizedPrecision
01-19-2016, 11:20 AM
Hi all ,

Thanks IV for leading us in the battle.
I am considering making a payment too .
I have a question to the community .
I know a lot us are waiting on HR213 to take out the numerical limitation for India and China and that would be a Great Leap Forward for to reduce our back log.

The recent proposals clearly talks about that in the below section ?
Is that not a great step and going to do us a great help ?

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/12/31/2015-32666/retention-of-eb-1-eb-2-and-eb-3-immigrant-workers-and-program-improvements-affecting-high-skilled#h-24

Section
E. The Increasing Damage Caused by Immigrant Visa Backlogs
"Since AC21 was enacted in October of 2000, workers seeking LPR status in the United States—particularly within the EB-2 and EB-3 preference categories—have faced increasing challenges as a consequence of the escalating wait times for immigrant visas. It often takes many years before an immigrant visa number becomes available. For some, the delays can last more than a decade. The combination of numerical limitations in the various employment-based preference categories with the per-country limitations that further limit visa availability to certain workers, has produced significant oversubscription in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories, particularly for Indian and Chinese nationals. For instance, the current approximate backlog for an EB-3 immigrant visa for workers from most countries is only a few months. For nationals of certain countries applying in the EB-3 category, delays have extended more than a decade. [30]"
Thanks everyone for commenting and contributing. I see that we're very close to hitting the Jan target. Although I think that might not be enough, it is certainly a great start.

Also great to see a lot of new folks jumping into the conversation and trying to do their part - if we're all better informed then the community will be well served and not susceptible to being lulled into following propaganda and moronic lawyers, their blogs, tweets etc.

This is a brass-knuckled fight and we've gotta give it all we've got NOW. If nothing happens in 2016, we can forget about any of this for years to come.

krish2005
01-19-2016, 04:49 PM
This system has so many bottlenecks that wreak havoc with many people's lives. Given said that we embraced this system with not much information about the hoops/hurdles initially when we came over to work on the provided opportunities. But now many people have understood that given the information available in the internet.

Sorry to vent my feelings here, but this draft rule will certainly add more woes to our pathetic situation given the chains we have to live on the H1B path.

There were couple instances that has stung my heart truly. One was a death of a friends' father just 3 days back. That fellow was stuck with the Visa extension paperwork and could not travel. The other one comes to my mind is another friend whose father passed away during the chennai flood situation. Being the only child in his family with both parents in India, one could not imagine the turmoil he would have undergone. Yet to hear from him if that person had reached chennai in time at least for the burial. He also was having his visa extension process going on. He had to come back only when the case gets approved. His family was left in US when he alone flew back to Chennai for the cremation.

All these are unknowns or knowns to the money mongrels who just hunt us down like a pack of dogs. This one rule is a damning example on how these filthy folks have taken advantage of us.

Sorry folks but these stories are there to haunt me down.

Hope at least USCIS shows some consideration when they take in the comments and review to allieve at least some of our friends who have been in this limbo for years.

Go IV..

Krishna

RandomizedPrecision
01-19-2016, 05:17 PM
Please make sure you and your friends post these in the comments in excruciating detail, if you haven't already. We have to make our voices heard and fight these lawyer + employer + lobbyist cartels with everything we've got.

Like Aman said, we're in the best position to tell our stories not some scumbag lawyer - so let's do just that. Have your friends recount the hassles and relate their stories as comments to the proposed rule and you could even approach a local News Channel and ask if they'd like to cover this.

Good luck to us all!

DMX17
01-19-2016, 05:34 PM
Good luck to us all!

Man I was on C-SPAN last night listening to senators fighting while discussing AC21 bill back in 2000. It was depressing to hear the words "H-1B visa bill" over and over. Not even a word about anything else affecting the people on H-1B themselves. 15 years later, this damn regulation proves the same: H-1Bs are needed

Nothing else. So good luck to us!

maddy1234
01-19-2016, 10:40 PM
Comment:
I completely oppose the proposed rule in its current form ...

There is a special interest (lawyers and employers) that lobby to keep an immigrant worker be in the H1B hyperloop and make sure that immigrant employees cannot change jobs, so companies can control & exploit immigrant workers, and, discriminate against Americans. This is the dirty truth about skilled immigration.

Immigration status is not an “employee retention tool”.

Please do consider the hardship that is being faced by an H1-B immigrant stuck in the EB-2 and EB3 backlog ... especially if one is from India/China.. which is an outright discrimination ... the proposed rule does not help more than 1 to 2% of the whole EB community .. we were expecting a EAD/AP without any restrictions once the i140 is approved.

On November 20, 2014, President Obama’s Executive Action on Immigration announced this fix as “Portable Work Authorization”. But the name of this proposed regulation is now “Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting Highly-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers”. Why was this changed ?

If this proposed regulation is not fixed, the system will choke the future of an H1B immigrant & his/her family stuck in backlog for years.

Also, it is completely unfair that an illegal immigrant can get an EAD through programs like DACA/DAPA while mistreating a legal immigrant with an approved LPR, waiting in queue, following the rules, paying the taxes, & helping the economy.

nvedia
01-21-2016, 08:12 AM
9,442 Comments Received and 6,379 published
Both numbers sound fishy
Looks like comments are being deleted as I am sure so many people have commented in last 20 days (not just 9442 comments)

drcool77
01-21-2016, 09:36 AM
Comment tracking Number 1k0-8nie-hquc.

tspiv
01-21-2016, 12:45 PM
While drafting my comment, I felt it would have been great if I had credible source (US Govt.) that I could cite to highlight the agonizing long wait I will have to go through.

For e.g., if USCIS says, a person who has priority date of today (or January, 2016) on EB3 from India, in worst case scenario (no spill over visa numbers) will have to wait another XX years. And, if that XX years is too long, then that could be a good reference we could use while commenting, or going forward during any of our interaction with Govt./Media/Representative.

Presently I think there is a perception that the wait time is only 10 to 12 years. Even most of my colleges who are filing now believe this. So, is there a way to get USCIS provide this details using FOIA, or subpoena in court?

I feel this should be a fair request, since people entering the GC queue deserve to know how long they could end up in the queue.

I'm new to the IV/GC queue, so please ignore if this question/approach is naive.

hil3182
01-21-2016, 12:54 PM
While drafting my comment, I felt it would have been great if I had credible source (US Govt.) that I could cite to highlight the agonizing long wait I will have to go through.

For e.g., if USCIS says, a person who has priority date of today (or January, 2016) on EB3 from India, in worst case scenario (no spill over visa numbers) will have to wait another XX years. And, if that XX years is too long, then that could be a good reference we could use while commenting, or going forward during any of our interaction with Govt./Media/Representative.

Presently I think there is a perception that the wait time is only 10 to 12 years. Even most of my colleges who are filing now believe this. So, is there a way to get USCIS provide this details using FOIA, or subpoena in court?

I feel this should be a fair request, since people entering the GC queue deserve to know how long they could end up in the queue.

I'm new to the IV/GC queue, so please ignore if this question/approach is naive.

We will be providing substantive technical comments later. For now, it would be sufficient if you could restrict your comments to the following points:

Open you comments with a firm rejection of the rule
Say only I140-EAD+AP with no compelling circumstances will fix deficiencies
Mention the Chamber of Commerce Lobbyist and ask for an FBI investigation


If they start getting comments that are anything other than a firm and univocal rejection of the rule, we will be stuck with this rule for at-least the next decade or so.

gopal008
01-21-2016, 01:27 PM
I see only 379 results for "oppose". At this rate USCIS will this in its current form.

gopal008
01-21-2016, 01:28 PM
^^At this rate USCIS will pass the rule in its current form.

DMX17
01-21-2016, 01:50 PM
I see only 379 results for "oppose". At this rate USCIS will this in its current form.

Did you try all keywords i.e. opposition, reject, etc? Just kidding. :D

I am waiting for IV comments for Round 2 firing. I hope the community will stand up in support and add another 10,000 Round 2 comments along the same lines. Meanwhile, it is very important not to follow the lawyer comments on a silver platter!

moon_walker333
01-21-2016, 01:58 PM
My comments:

I oppose the proposed rule in its current form. It does nothing to help retain millions of Immigrant Workers sitting in decade long queue just to get Green Card.

EAD and Advanced Parole (Travel Document) should be provided to anyone with approved I140, without requirement to prove compelling circumstances. Also, the renewals of EAD and AP should be easy and straight forward without any conditions or restrictions. Since the applicant and his/her family members have to wait for years or decades before their Priority Date becomes current. These tax paying, law abiding, legal immigrants must be able to switch jobs and progress in their career. This actually will help American Citizens, because everyone then will be playing by the same rules and employers will not get unfair incentive to hire H1B immigrants over American Citizens.

The proposed rule, in its current form, definitely benefits the Employers who get unfair incentive to hire H1B immigrants over American Citizens knowing that the H1B immigrant is not going to be able to switch jobs easily and would settle for limited career progression opportunity while waiting for Green Card. Also, immigration attorneys gets benefited because of the business they will be getting with all these unnecessary and frequent applications/processes immigrants have to go through to be able to stay and work in US. This is so unfair!!!

I became aware of the fact that a US Chamber of Commerce Lobbyist went and joined DHS and was one of the key people to draft this rule. That is a fraud!!! I request FBI investigation in this matter to validate that all the correct procedure and protocols were followed while drafting this rule and there was absolutely no fraud committed.

tspiv
01-22-2016, 11:05 AM
Someone monitoring this forum seems to have copy pasted the instructions provided here in the "regulations.gov" in the name of Aman. But what are the odds of that same comment ending up among the top sorted comment for the day? To me it appears there are folks within the system who can tweak the way the comments are highlighted. This is crazy.

Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/index.jsp#!docketDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008)

devndev
01-22-2016, 11:41 AM
Someone monitoring this forum seems to have copy pasted the instructions provided here in the "regulations.gov" in the name of Aman. But what are the odds of that same comment ending up among the top sorted comment for the day? To me it appears there are folks within the system who can tweak the way the comments are highlighted. This is crazy.

Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/index.jsp#!docketDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008)

Wow, is it a bizarre coincidence :eek: ? doubt it ..

krish2005
01-22-2016, 01:18 PM
Wow, is it a bizarre coincidence :eek: ? doubt it ..

Wow. So many of these blood suckers against us and IV. They have posted the suggestion from us to post the comment into this site. This is atrocious and expected so too.

We still have to post our objection to the rule. I have done mine vehemently already and suggested 10 friends who are in IV too to post their comments. Lets fight this out folks.

Krishna

RandomizedPrecision
01-22-2016, 02:26 PM
Someone monitoring this forum seems to have copy pasted the instructions provided here in the "regulations.gov" in the name of Aman. But what are the odds of that same comment ending up among the top sorted comment for the day? To me it appears there are folks within the system who can tweak the way the comments are highlighted. This is crazy.

Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/index.jsp#!docketDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008)
Any moron can post anything they want to - such is the nature of democracy and open comment periods. I don't think there is any need to be distracted by these things - just continue to post your comments echoing that you DO NOT Support the rule in the current format in the first line itself.

Also, feel free to add your own personal stories to these comments - about time we gave these USCIS bozos who are in bed with asshat lawyers and blood-sucking employer groups a run for the money.

So what if they pull this fucking rule. If it goes into effect in its current form then it is as good as not having anything in the first place.

shv
01-22-2016, 04:14 PM
Lets get the point straight

Just for the sake of Commenting and/or demanding/requesting something or rejecting the rule will NOT do the job. You will have to explain the hardships faced and the genuine reasons behind the relief/adjustment you are asking for in the rule. Also explain in detail how it benefits US or its economy or improves unemployment rate etc. Also be polite, positive, professional while commenting.

Just realize one thing that they will not make significant changes to the rule, they can only add or update few things in the rule.

Also realize that more comments will delay the OMB review process. It's good that we have less comments so far but I see very few genuine comments being posted which will help the rule.

Comments like plainly rejecting the rule or negative comments or comments like asking to remove the complete compelling circumstances criteria may not happen, as i mentioned they will not make significant changes in the rule. You have to be more practical and also think from the comment reviewers perspective and ask yourself a question why would they provide the benefit/relief to you and what benefit they will get out of it. Asking something like add one more clause to the compelling circumstances criteria like 5) Provide relief(unlimited EAD/AP) for people who are facing/will face long wait times due to Visa backlogs. makes sense, but provide a detail description as to why it is needed and whats the benefit out of it.
Hope it helps!

probeer.das
01-22-2016, 05:14 PM
Pardon me guys for being a little ignorant.
Where to comment? can someone share the link please? Do I need to comment on the dropbox document or the proposed rule?

Flyingcrow
01-22-2016, 05:45 PM
Pardon me guys for being a little ignorant.
Where to comment? can someone share the link please? Do I need to comment on the dropbox document or the proposed rule?


Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/index.jsp#!docketDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008)

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/12/31/2015-32666/retention-of-eb-1-eb-2-and-eb-3-immigrant-workers-and-program-improvements-affecting-high-skilled#open-comment

bob4gc
01-23-2016, 01:38 AM
When are we going to get suggestions for next round (technical aspects?) of comments?

nvedia
01-23-2016, 05:34 AM
Pardon me guys for being a little ignorant.
Where to comment? can someone share the link please? Do I need to comment on the dropbox document or the proposed rule?
Feel free to ask here if you have any questions
Please make sure once you have commented you search in the system after 1-2 days that your comment actually got published
Once you have commented, do not forget to ask your friends, colleagues, neighbors

BABUG
01-25-2016, 09:18 AM
Some one copy pasted the first suggestion from Administrator 2 on the regulation.gov :o

Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008-6633)

nvedia
01-25-2016, 09:20 AM
Some one copy pasted the first suggestion from Administrator 2 on the regulation.gov :o

Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008-6633)

Yes must be an immigration lawyer but there is nothing to fear
Its just a suggestion/help on what to post as a comment, nothing wrong in it if they see that

gaurav77
01-25-2016, 01:11 PM
Apologies if I missed this, but have there been any "more technical comment" suggestions posted as pointed to in this post ?:

Initial comments for EAD for I140 Regulation - Immigration Voice (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/3096644-initial-comments-for-ead-for-i140-regulation.html#post3594460)

DMX17
01-25-2016, 02:19 PM
Apologies if I missed this, but have there been any "more technical comment" suggestions posted as pointed to in this post ?:

Initial comments for EAD for I140 Regulation - Immigration Voice (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/3096644-initial-comments-for-ead-for-i140-regulation.html#post3594460)

Not yet. We are all waiting, but trust me the technical comments are not something that can be made in a hurry on this complex issue.

RandomizedPrecision
01-25-2016, 05:25 PM
Not yet. We are all waiting, but trust me the technical comments are not something that can be made in a hurry on this complex issue.
I do have one technical comment for Amy White that is quick (maybe dirty too): "Suck on this Beyotch!"

RandomizedPrecision
01-25-2016, 05:35 PM
I do have one technical comment for Amy White that is quick (maybe dirty too): "Suck on this Beyotch!"
Amy White = Amy Nice unless Amy White too is a blood-sucking USCIS stooge responsible for derailing this rule

Ramalingam
01-26-2016, 10:19 AM
Not yet. We are all waiting, but trust me the technical comments are not something that can be made in a hurry on this complex issue.
Usually comment process is very simple but in this case it is tricky. If they consider your comments as opposing then if opposing comments are overwhelming then they could drop the regulation. If they consider your comments as enhancement and your suggestions for improvement are impractical by law then either they could reject your comments or they could drop the regulation. Another aspect is more the number of comments more delay. When they racing against court imposed deadline they asked 3 months delay for 50k comments in OPT extension this regulation could drag months if not years and that could easily pass Obama Admin. All the above issues need to be tackled

DMX17
01-26-2016, 03:10 PM
Usually comment process is very simple but in this case it is tricky. If they consider your comments as opposing then if opposing comments are overwhelming then they could drop the regulation. If they consider your comments as enhancement and your suggestions for improvement are impractical by law then either they could reject your comments or they could drop the regulation. Another aspect is more the number of comments more delay. When they racing against court imposed deadline they asked 3 months delay for 50k comments in OPT extension this regulation could drag months if not years and that could easily pass Obama Admin. All the above issues need to be tackled

Thank you for your insights and contribution. Now, tell us what kind of technical comments we should make so that the underlying PERM and I-140 remain valid when I change job to a new employer without me having to re-do the GC process again. EAD part is easy, right?

Appreciate it!

ravic1900
01-26-2016, 05:14 PM
How one "Amanda" is praising the Chamber in this comment:
Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008-2546)

"
This Rule achieves all Intentions and objectives of Businesses to retain high skilled immigrants. Businesses should dictate what benefits their employees get and these benefits include immigration benefits and benefits that will allow them to live freely.

I greatly applaud the writers of this rule and their partners including US Chamber of Commerce.

Thank You
Amanda
"

kaca
01-26-2016, 05:43 PM
So that Amanda wants the law to just retain India born people for decades while people from rest of the world get their greencards and citizenship.

We should ask her to request for implementing the retention law for everybody regardless of their nationality.

ravic1900
01-26-2016, 05:49 PM
Please see this comment


Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCIS-2015-0008-7239)


Thanks,

Flyingcrow
01-26-2016, 06:15 PM
So that Amanda wants the law to just retain India born people for decades while people from rest of the world get their greencards and citizenship.

We should ask her to request for implementing the retention law for everybody regardless of their nationality.

Somebody had made a sarcastic comment, look at the name at the top on that comment :Amy NotNice

casinoking
01-26-2016, 08:40 PM
Somebody had made a sarcastic comment, look at the name at the top on that comment :Amy NotNice

:D:D:D Finally my comment got posted. Good to know.

thankstooptx
01-27-2016, 09:39 AM
Any update on the technical comments. I don't want to sound pushy but I think we need some time to spread the word once the technical comments are out. I took me almost 2 weeks to force my friends to post a comment... I can only imagine how long it would take to post them second time around :)

shv
01-27-2016, 03:31 PM
https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf

shv
01-27-2016, 04:09 PM
I've just added my technical comment in the regulations.gov and may help others too, see below:-

Thanks for coming up with the rule, I oppose this rule in the current format and want uscis/dhs to provide EAD/AP benefit for people having approved I140 with current employer and completed 6 years on H1b visa and facing compelling situation of long wait times due to huge Visa backlogs.

i140(As per rule Employee owns I140 after 180 days as the employer cannot revoke I140 and Priority Date is retained).

After having eligible for EAD/AP benefit based on the above criteria, here are the technical details that the rule should implement:-

1) Provide an option to Employee's to make a decision whether to remain in nonimmigrant status or to be in EAD/AP status.
a) Employee can choose to be on EAD/AP (and avail benefits of EAD/AP)
b) Employee may choose to maintain H1b (Maintain H1b nonimmigrant status if he/she wishes to)

2)
a) Go for Consular processing(or if possible by law file AOS) when Priority date(PD) becomes current when using ead status(and not maintaining H1/nonimmigrant status)
b) File AOS when PD becomes current (for those who are in or maintaining H1/nonimmigrant status)

3) Spouse & dependents(over 18 years) gets Ead/AP benefits.

4) Getting an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and using an EAD are two entirely different things. Using an EAD means working based on that EAD, and that means when employee join any company (as the employee owns I140 here after 180 days), Employee must sign an I-9 form in which employment eligibility is based on the EAD. The person can change from H1 status to EAD status by contacting their HR department and filling out I9 form again based on EAD.

5) Similarly, getting an Advance Parole (AP) and using an AP are two entirely different things. Using an AP means leaving the U.S. and then showing your AP to enter the U.S. as a parolee, instead of showing the visa to enter the U.S. as a nonimmigrant. As parolees can't work in the U.S., he/she should get an EAD before traveling on an AP. Receiving an AP is just an addition of one more document in your file.Just receiving an EAD/AP does not change the nonimmigrant status in any way, and he/she is still on H1b status; thus, the person is either in EAD/AP status or in H1b status.

As long as a person maintains an H1b status (H1b status not expired, H1b holders working for any employer), he/she can travel outside the U.S. and come back without the need for advanced parole even after having an AP option in hand. The person can enter using his/her non-expired H1b visa. For valid H1b visa holders, there is no need to apply for EAD to continue working after returning to the U.S.

6) Employee's are not allowed to work on an expired EAD while his renewal EAD application is pending. He/she have to apply for renewal of EAD every year or every 3 years (if possible).

7) In general, if the person is married, he/she may want to apply for an EAD/AP for both, so that their spouse can start working and he/she can also work for another employer if he/she wishes. If the person is single, he/she may want to maintain H1b status so that he/she can bring his/her spouse on H4 if he/she gets married and then apply for EAD/AP for both.

9) If I485 denied being on EAD/AP a person have to go back to own country - as the person has already finished over 6 years on H1b and not maintaining H1b status.

10) Apply for timely renewal of EAD and AP. Please allow a person who is unemployed(sudden job loss) being on H1b status or EAD status upto the grace period of at least 90 days to get a new job within 90 days of time or leave the country.

11) Change jobs anytime on ead/ap after i140-ead approval based on same/similar criteria.

12) After changing jobs based on EAD or by H1b transfer, New Employer should just update employee's original PERM/I140(based on AC21 same/similar occupation criteria) and NOT filing a new one. If employee wants H1b transfer and wants to maintain H1b status then new employer should file for H1b transfer.

Through this rule, I urge DHS to propose to allow certain approved Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140) beneficiaries(with approved I140 with current employer and completed 6 years on H1b visa and facing long wait times due to huge Visa backlogs) to obtain work authorization, portable work authorization, and remove unnecessary restrictions on the ability to change jobs or progress in careers, as well as providing relief to workers facing lengthy adjustment delays due to huge backlogs ranging from 10-20 years of wait time and this way new employer don't have to restart PERM/I140 process every time employee changes job.

abcdgc
01-27-2016, 05:15 PM
Murthy says how good this regulation is:

In the meantime...Friends of Amy (Sheela Ki) have started selling her regulation - Priority Date Retention & I-140 Revocation Protections: Proposed Regulation « Murthy Law Firm : U.S. Immigration Law (http://www.murthy.com/2016/01/27/priority-date-retention-i-140-revocation-protections-proposed-regulation/)

Administrator2
01-27-2016, 05:46 PM
Murthy says how good this regulation is:

In the meantime...Friends of Amy (Sheela Ki) have started selling her regulation - Priority Date Retention & I-140 Revocation Protections: Proposed Regulation « Murthy Law Firm : U.S. Immigration Law (http://www.murthy.com/2016/01/27/priority-date-retention-i-140-revocation-protections-proposed-regulation/)


When retrogression started and backlog became a problem in 2005, Murthy also said that retrogression and backlog is good because now unmarried people can go to marry.

Its like saying, if someone looted you of a million dollars then it is good that now you will no longer have to maintain a bank account.

The test for this regulation is, whether or not this regulation provide "portable work authorization" and "Advance Parole" as mentioned in President's Executive Action on Immigration? If the answer is no, then the regulation is useless.

"Retention/recapture of priority date" is already allowed even prior to this regulation. This regulation is not about "retention of priority date". It is about "retention of employees by employers so you live like slaves like rest of your lives so immigration lawyers like Murthy can make more money off of you.

Here is another lie. Immigration Lawyers will make you believe that per this regulation Withdrawal of I-140 by Petitioner Would No Longer Lead to Revocation, meaning employer cannot withdraw your I-140. This is just not true. Immigration lawyers and this regulation is making a fool out of immigrants. Here is how-

Remember a few years back Congress passed the law prohibiting companies to recover H1B fee and Green card fee from immigrant employees? Well, guess what? The same industry lobbyist who fuck'ed up this regulation were behind putting in "liquidated damages" loophole allowing companies to collect "liquidated damages" in case you leave them, meaning, creating means for companies to recover H1B fee and green card fee (plus 20,000 or 30,000 fee) from you. We know all this all too well, how the real system works. Every immigration lawyers knows that employer must not collect H1B fee and Green card fee from employee. But everyone (including every immigration lawyer) knows that immigrant employee pays the entire H1B cost and green card cost. Why, because of "liquidated damages" loophole. Likewise, this "withdrawing I-140 by employer" is a bunch of hogwash. The same sleazy lawyers have screwed this regulation to put a loophole which says that employers can revoke I-140 if there is a fraud. Well, there are already enough laws on the books which says that immigrant will not get green card if you are involved in bank robbery, murder, drugs trade, any fraud etc etc etc. There is absolutely no need to put in power in the hands of employer to revoke your I-140 for fraud. USCIS will revoke I-140 if there is fraud. But this loophole is put in place so employer can use it against you to revoke your I-140 by making up some fake reason for "fraud" to get even with you if you decide to change employer. This may look innocent, but these loopholes are all over this regulation to screw you many times over without immigrants realizing it.

If there is no "continuous validity of I-140", here will be no EAD for H-4 either.

"Retention/recapture of priority date" is already allowed under the current system even without this regulation. Even today you can change employer and retain your priority date to start your new green card process. Then what is new in this fucking 183 page regulation?

So now go back and read Murthy's analysis and ask what did you get out of this regulation. Answer is - Nada, Zero, nothing and the system got more complicated for you to cough up more money for immigration lawyers. So be careful to drink Murthy's cool-aid for this regulation. If you put in comments which might even remote sound like "I support" or "I support but can you change...", if you do this, you are your own worst enemy.

One has to be honest with oneself with looking at facts. IV was working on this regulation for long time. But because it has not delivered what was promised, we are now against it. And we would rather see this regulation burn down to the ground than sleazy and slimy immigration lawyers tell us how great this is.

Bsingh-IV
01-27-2016, 09:08 PM
Let us send 100000 printed letter to DHS/USCIS. (Preferably with a colorful flower petal or $1 in side). I think this will be a novel and effective way to make our message persuasive and memorable.

Reason: USCIS / DHS hardly has any time to read our electronic comments and blogs.


Print and mail hard copy may cost you max 1 or 2$. (Use your innovation and creativity here).

To: Laura Dawkins, (DHS Docket No. USCIS-2015-0008)
Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division,
Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20529.

Please reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2015-0008 on your correspondence.

Good Luck friends.
B Singh

RandomizedPrecision
01-27-2016, 09:26 PM
Let us send 100000 printed letter to DHS/USCIS. (Preferably with a colorful flower petal or $1 in side). I think this will be a novel and effective way to make our message persuasive and memorable.

Reason: USCIS / DHS hardly has any time to read our electronic comments and blogs.


Print and mail hard copy may cost you max 1 or 2$. (Use your innovation and creativity here).

To: Laura Dawkins, (DHS Docket No. USCIS-2015-0008)
Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division,
Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20529.

Please reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2015-0008 on your correspondence.

Good Luck friends.
B Singh
Another brilliant idea - this is what we desis are good at: endless ideation.

USCIS and any govt. agency is required by law to read and respond to any legit comments irrespective of what form they came in. So, if they are not going to read electronic ones what makes you think they will bother reading physical ones? Electronic ones are hard to erase as they leave a digital trail - paper ones can just be trashed.

So, please, pretty please - with cherry on top. If you have any energy left, please spend it wisely by following IVs instructions. Post more comments, donate, encourage others to post and donate... lather, rinse and repeat.

But please spare everyone from more of this brilliance and not turn this forum into one big dumpyard where folks just come to post endless blather of "innovative and creative" ideas.

chakdepatte
01-28-2016, 12:34 PM
if DAPA/DACA can be challenged to Supreme court, why not take that route for this regulation?

RandomizedPrecision
01-28-2016, 01:04 PM
if DAPA/DACA can be challenged to Supreme court, why not take that route for this regulation?
Sure. Good idea. Do it.

DMX17
01-28-2016, 02:06 PM
Sure. Good idea. Do it.

Is there a lawyer willing to do this pro bono (i.e. expense only)?

If so I can provide a convincing argument for them (DMX17 copyrighted). :D

dkshitij
01-28-2016, 08:09 PM
I've just added my technical comment in the regulations.gov and may help others too, see below:-

Thanks for coming up with the rule, I oppose this rule in the current format and want uscis/dhs to provide EAD/AP benefit for people having approved I140 with current employer and completed 6 years on H1b visa and facing compelling situation of long wait times due to huge Visa backlogs.

i140(As per rule Employee owns I140 after 180 days as the employer cannot revoke I140 and Priority Date is retained).

After having eligible for EAD/AP benefit based on the above criteria, here are the technical details that the rule should implement:-

1) Provide an option to Employee's to make a decision whether to remain in nonimmigrant status or to be in EAD/AP status.
a) Employee can choose to be on EAD/AP (and avail benefits of EAD/AP)
b) Employee may choose to maintain H1b (Maintain H1b nonimmigrant status if he/she wishes to)

2)
a) Go for Consular processing(or if possible by law file AOS) when Priority date(PD) becomes current when using ead status(and not maintaining H1/nonimmigrant status)
b) File AOS when PD becomes current (for those who are in or maintaining H1/nonimmigrant status)

3) Spouse & dependents(over 18 years) gets Ead/AP benefits.

4) Getting an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and using an EAD are two entirely different things. Using an EAD means working based on that EAD, and that means when employee join any company (as the employee owns I140 here after 180 days), Employee must sign an I-9 form in which employment eligibility is based on the EAD. The person can change from H1 status to EAD status by contacting their HR department and filling out I9 form again based on EAD.

5) Similarly, getting an Advance Parole (AP) and using an AP are two entirely different things. Using an AP means leaving the U.S. and then showing your AP to enter the U.S. as a parolee, instead of showing the visa to enter the U.S. as a nonimmigrant. As parolees can't work in the U.S., he/she should get an EAD before traveling on an AP. Receiving an AP is just an addition of one more document in your file.Just receiving an EAD/AP does not change the nonimmigrant status in any way, and he/she is still on H1b status; thus, the person is either in EAD/AP status or in H1b status.

As long as a person maintains an H1b status (H1b status not expired, H1b holders working for any employer), he/she can travel outside the U.S. and come back without the need for advanced parole even after having an AP option in hand. The person can enter using his/her non-expired H1b visa. For valid H1b visa holders, there is no need to apply for EAD to continue working after returning to the U.S.

6) Employee's are not allowed to work on an expired EAD while his renewal EAD application is pending. He/she have to apply for renewal of EAD every year or every 3 years (if possible).

7) In general, if the person is married, he/she may want to apply for an EAD/AP for both, so that their spouse can start working and he/she can also work for another employer if he/she wishes. If the person is single, he/she may want to maintain H1b status so that he/she can bring his/her spouse on H4 if he/she gets married and then apply for EAD/AP for both.

9) If I485 denied being on EAD/AP a person have to go back to own country - as the person has already finished over 6 years on H1b and not maintaining H1b status.

10) Apply for timely renewal of EAD and AP. Please allow a person who is unemployed(sudden job loss) being on H1b status or EAD status upto the grace period of at least 90 days to get a new job within 90 days of time or leave the country.

11) Change jobs anytime on ead/ap after i140-ead approval based on same/similar criteria.

12) After changing jobs based on EAD or by H1b transfer, New Employer should just update employee's original PERM/I140(based on AC21 same/similar occupation criteria) and NOT filing a new one. If employee wants H1b transfer and wants to maintain H1b status then new employer should file for H1b transfer.

Through this rule, I urge DHS to propose to allow certain approved Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140) beneficiaries(with approved I140 with current employer and completed 6 years on H1b visa and facing long wait times due to huge Visa backlogs) to obtain work authorization, portable work authorization, and remove unnecessary restrictions on the ability to change jobs or progress in careers, as well as providing relief to workers facing lengthy adjustment delays due to huge backlogs ranging from 10-20 years of wait time and this way new employer don't have to restart PERM/I140 process every time employee changes job.

Your comment became useless once you said Thank you as your first two words.

Resubmit the comment again with opening something like" I oppose this rule in entirety" Do not thank them. Thanking them is taken as a sign of support.

thankstooptx
01-29-2016, 10:39 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/4376gx/laidoff_it_workers_muzzled_as_h1b_debate_heats_up/czgfzqk

vikastaneja
01-29-2016, 04:28 PM
Everyone talks about laid of US Citizens and replaced by H1Bs. I haven't seen a single post where H1Bs layoff are talked. I am certain that people on H1Bs are laid off too...why there is no traction in that area? Why there are no such lawsuits?

foia
01-29-2016, 04:51 PM
Because H1B has so many restrictions and people on H1B can not claim any unemployment here.

Flyingcrow
01-29-2016, 05:23 PM
Everyone talks about laid of US Citizens and replaced by H1Bs. I haven't seen a single post where H1Bs layoff are talked. I am certain that people on H1Bs are laid off too...why there is no traction in that area? Why there are no such lawsuits?

Let me guess... okay, because it makes no sense?!

eastindia
01-29-2016, 05:45 PM
Everyone talks about laid of US Citizens and replaced by H1Bs. I haven't seen a single post where H1Bs layoff are talked. I am certain that people on H1Bs are laid off too...why there is no traction in that area? Why there are no such lawsuits?

H1bs are rarely laid off. The only reason they are laid off is either they are bad workers or company is closing down . The it is a cost cutting measure then H1bs are last to be laid off. They are cheap for any company . If a company is laying off h1bs with citizen workers then hats off to such company for being honest and paying equal wages to foreign workers .

Also have you ever heard of any consulting company laying off any H1b?
Have you wondered why consulting companies only hire foreigners from india in majority? Because of backlog so that they can retain them at low rates.

If backlog is gone equality and fairness will come that will hurt companies

kaca
01-29-2016, 05:56 PM
Instead of continuing to have this as an Indian Problem if HR 213 gets passed it will be a problem of people from every country. May be that will help getting more attention.

What is the next step for HR 213. How do we get to the floor for voting.
There is some benefit for Family based Immigration as well from HR 213. With that in mind is it possible to get the help of Philipino and Mexican communities. They too suffer because of that.

How do we get Paul Ryan to push it forward?

Ramalingam
01-29-2016, 11:32 PM
H1bs are rarely laid off. The only reason they are laid off is either they are bad workers or company is closing down . The it is a cost cutting measure then H1bs are last to be laid off. They are cheap for any company . If a company is laying off h1bs with citizen workers then hats off to such company for being honest and paying equal wages to foreign workers .

Also have you ever heard of any consulting company laying off any H1b?
Have you wondered why consulting companies only hire foreigners from india in majority? Because of backlog so that they can retain them at low rates.

If backlog is gone equality and fairness will come that will hurt companies

Generally H1bs will not be laid of because of the reasons

1. Employer knows that they will not leave until they get GC or at least till I140 is cleared. So minimum 3 years is for sure. Most Citizens and GC holders will jump to jobs if they get a better offer
2. Why would consulting companies layoff H1b. Consulting with H1b is no loss business that too without any investment. If in bench most employers can keep in bench without pay
3. Most H1bs are young and they must me receiving less pay than citizens with same aptitude and skill. Of course there are exceptions

If backlog is gone the advantage is H1bs will get freedom to change the employers without any issue. That may be good for labor market.. But only drawback is US citizens will lose special treatment for jobs because some companies hire without H1b hassle

So I140 EAD is not welcomed by employers and some lawyers but also most GC holders and US citizens. Of course recet GC holders might not oppose but they mught not support wholehearted. Anything exceptions are there

tspiv
01-31-2016, 12:40 AM
I spoke to someone who works for Fed (though not related to USCIS/DHS) where he is regularly involved in various rule making. He provided me an high level overview of how the existing law works, without divulging any of his job specifics. According to him, making changes to a proposed rule no big deal at all. In their case, they normally have four or five members in a select committee, and once the commenting period is closed, they spend hours going through every comment, and try to incorporate most of the valid suggestions they receive.

However, it is the same team that comes up with the proposed rule, that reviews the comments as well. So, now, the only hope is, the displeasure among the legal immigrants gets bubbled up within the USCIS and there is some pressure on the existing team to the job what they were originally asked to do.

tspiv
01-31-2016, 01:05 AM
Instead of continuing to have this as an Indian Problem if HR 213 gets passed it will be a problem of people from every country. May be that will help getting more attention.

What is the next step for HR 213. How do we get to the floor for voting.
There is some benefit for Family based Immigration as well from HR 213. With that in mind is it possible to get the help of Philipino and Mexican communities. They too suffer because of that.

How do we get Paul Ryan to push it forward?

I would say, for next couple of months we should focus all our energy on the proposed rule.

nvedia
01-31-2016, 07:41 AM
I spoke to someone who works for Fed (though not related to USCIS/DHS) where he is regularly involved in various rule making. He provided me an high level overview of how the existing law works, without divulging any of his job specifics. According to him, making changes to a proposed rule no big deal at all. In their case, they normally have four or five members in a select committee, and once the commenting period is closed, they spend hours going through every comment, and try to incorporate most of the valid suggestions they receive.

However, it is the same team that comes up with the proposed rule, that reviews the comments as well. So, now, the only hope is, the displeasure among the legal immigrants gets bubbled up within the USCIS and there is some pressure on the existing team to the job what they were originally asked to do.

This is the same team who went against President Executive Action

shv
02-01-2016, 11:25 AM
Your comment became useless once you said Thank you as your first two words.

Resubmit the comment again with opening something like" I oppose this rule in entirety" Do not thank them. Thanking them is taken as a sign of support.

Done! Comment resubmitted!

moon_walker333
02-02-2016, 02:32 PM
IV Admins,

Can you please provide an ETA on Technical Comments ? or let everyone know if there is a different plan of action under work.

Thanks.

vikidisi
02-02-2016, 02:51 PM
IV Admins,

Can you please provide an ETA on Technical Comments ? or let everyone know if there is a different plan of action under work.

Thanks.

A lot of folks are heads down helping with this. Hang in there. Additionally, lot of activity in the background. Stay tuned.

nvedia
02-02-2016, 02:54 PM
A lot of folks are heads down helping with this. Hang in there. Additionally, lot of activity in the background. Stay tuned.

We keep hearing this
Its good to be informed and keeps everyone active
No updates from IV after the last call

vikidisi
02-02-2016, 03:05 PM
We keep hearing this
Its good to be informed and keeps everyone active
No updates from IV after the last call

Understand the eagerness and yes would be awesome to post almost daily updates, but not reasonable given there are several moving parts. We will have a pubic update soon.

RandomizedPrecision
02-02-2016, 05:36 PM
Understand the eagerness and yes would be awesome to post almost daily updates, but not reasonable given there are several moving parts. We will have a pubic update soon.
It is always good to play with your cards close to your vest considering there are hundreds of blood-sucking lawyer-employer mongrels trying to undermine us.

Thanks for all the work - I'm confident that IV will share with us what we need to know when we need to know.

Good luck to us all.

DMX17
02-02-2016, 06:23 PM
It is always good to play with your cards close to your vest considering there are hundreds of blood-sucking lawyer-employer mongrels trying to undermine us.


To them I say, the legal basis of I-140 fix is right there. Right there. I see it.

While another lawyer is "disappointed" that the regulation does not define what they meant by "one-time" grace period after layoff on H-1B. You gotta tip your hat to the Murthy lawyers man!

nvedia
02-02-2016, 07:42 PM
To them I say, the legal basis of I-140 fix is right there. Right there. I see it.

While another lawyer is "disappointed" that the regulation does not define what they meant by "one-time" grace period after layoff on H-1B. You gotta tip your hat to the Murthy lawyers man!
I feel murthy law firm is one the biggest lobbyist in this whole I 140 thing

HumHongeKaamyaab
02-02-2016, 08:01 PM
I feel murthy law firm is one the biggest lobbyist in this whole I 140 thing

Totally agree. I think Murthy is one of the more slimy lawyers out there. I cant share specifics, but I have heard rough stories about what they do in the background.

vikastaneja
02-03-2016, 04:16 AM
Understand the eagerness and yes would be awesome to post almost daily updates, but not reasonable given there are several moving parts. We will have a pubic update soon.

Given what happened after IV shared the doc in June and what rule comes out, I think it's best we play safe and don't disclose. Let's play the same game the same way these anti-immigrant lobbyists and lawyers understand. I trust IV. Let's show the cards when there is no move left for them and it's time to say check-and-mate.

tspiv
02-03-2016, 01:42 PM
I was explaining my situation as a legal immigrant to a US voter. He was very pissed at DHS/USCIS for our situation, and recommended me to visit the local Congressman, and explain the sequence of events that transpired from Obama's EO, and to the proposed rule.

Does IV has any opinion: towards / against / neutral, in visiting my local powerful congressman?

vidyas_m
02-03-2016, 02:45 PM
Does IV has any opinion: towards / against / neutral, in visiting my local powerful congressman?

Hi tspiv,

IV is ALWAYS FOR visiting the local congressman and senators and advocating for our cause and our problems. That's what IV members do at the Advocacy Meetings conducted in DC, meeting our reps and educating them on the issues we face.

nvedia
02-03-2016, 03:15 PM
Given what happened after IV shared the doc in June and what rule comes out, I think it's best we play safe and don't disclose. Let's play the same game the same way these anti-immigrant lobbyists and lawyers understand. I trust IV. Let's show the cards when there is no move left for them and it's time to say check-and-mate.

Thanks but what I was referring to was something like
Analyze the already published comments both in terms of content and numbers and provide feedback if its going in the right direction (there could be volunteers for this)
If the number is too less, we need to gear up as volunteers and do more effort in educating the folks

This is just to make sure things are going fine as as planned
I remember in the call, one concern was that not many people come forward to get involved/help except cribbing on internet but I believe its all about marketing and telling people there is something called "Immigration Voice" so that they come forward

Does number have power? I don't know but if it does we have got it....

amarbasay
02-04-2016, 01:02 PM
Phoenix Open 2016 Live Stream (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B-FcUzgg18)

houston_boy
02-04-2016, 03:49 PM
Hi

Its been observed that from last 3 to 4 days, I see lot of comments with american names saying HIRE AMERICANS and more Americans in technology field are jobless etc.. I guess this is because of DUMBERSUSA.com.

Please gear up and post more comments with first line as " I completely oppose the rule in the current form" and later demanding/questioning about hiring AMY the lobbyist against the executive actions.

waitnlate
02-04-2016, 08:43 PM
Americans are opposing this rule. We are opposing this rule. No one wants this rule?? What am I missing. Anyway it seems this rule is not helping. So if it's implemented or not, it doesn't matter, right? So why do we need to post comments.

No one wants retention of PD and I-140?? I want it so I can change my employer without any worry especially given some well documented cases of PD NOT being retained recently. There is no law in regards to retention of PD yet. If there is one, can someone give me a link to it so I can share with my lawyer too.


I am disappointed and frustrated and want AP and EAD too but what is the current strategy?!

prasadjoglekar
02-04-2016, 09:11 PM
I'm not IV, but my 2c: I think retention of PD and I-140 alone don't provide freedom to change employer. Without the proper fixes, you will still need to re-file for PERM, still need to keep your H1. Which means, your new employer has to go through all the hassles of the immigration system. Which in turn means fewer employers want to hire you in the first place. So, nothing really has changed - the rule says a lot but does nothing.

To your question of retention of PD/I-140: if that was the original intent of the rule, then sure. But the goal was broader, and in that context, retaining PD/I-140 is somewhat irrelevant; without HR 213 or equivalent, most folks are going to be stuck in limbo for 10+ years, and retaining PD/I-140 does nothing to ease your pain or provide freedom in that time.

I think the subtle under-text is this: This is the one chance we have to get this right; if we don't, we're stuck with this for another 5-6 years.

waitnlate
02-04-2016, 10:54 PM
I agree it was meant to and should have been broader. So how do we get more?

Retention of PD/I-140 means I don't lose my place in line and I don't reset my clock and start all over again with new PD in never ending wait if I am lucky to change employer.

I support IV to help myself but am lost to what's the current strategy. Only thing I have at present is faith.

VinayJ
02-04-2016, 11:46 PM
IV, eagerly waiting for new set of technical comments. Please share.

Sri_Jay
02-05-2016, 02:44 PM
After the comments period ends 29th Feb 2016, what are the next steps? When will this rule be finalized?

prasadjoglekar
02-05-2016, 04:52 PM
After the comments period ends 29th Feb 2016, what are the next steps? When will this rule be finalized?

USCIS/DHS have to consider and respond to all reasonable comments. I don't think anyone knows how much time they'll take. For context, the H-4 EAD rule took almost 1 year from the end of the comment period to become final rule.

Separately, I don't think anyone here wants this rule to be "finalized" in its current incarnation.

HumHongeKaamyaab
02-08-2016, 01:52 AM
Check this out posted on Oh Law Firm...looks like Supplement Form J is approved...I take this as a minor signal that our commenting may not be working/have worked..I see this and am disappointed :(

02/07/2016: OMB Completed Review of New Form "Supplement J" to I-485 Form on 02/04/2016 Pending Completion of Rule-Making Process for EB Modernization Rule

The Supplement J form is created for the USCIS to verify continuing "existence" of I-485 employer's intent to offer the permanent employment, no matter whether in the context of initial concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 or subsequent change of employment by the foreign worker after 180 days of filing of I-485 applications using I-140 portability under Section 204(j) of the immigration statute. Again, the USCIS has gone through this new form enactment process to be prepared for forthcoming implementation of the pending rule of Modernization of Employment-based Immigration Reform. The foreign workers who are waiting to file I-485 applications or have already filed I-485 applications and either have changed employers or intends to change employer using portability under 204(j) provision may want to review this new form and instruction to learn when they will be required to file this new form after the pending Modernization Rule is finalized and implemented in the near future.
02/07/2016: USCIS Clears Revision of I-765 EAD Application Form to Implement Pending Rule of Modernization of Employment-based Immigration Reform

In preparation of completion of pending rule of approved I-140 benefits reform in the name of Modernization of Employment-based Immigration Reform of Obama's immigration actions, the USCIS has drafted revision of current EAD application of I-765 to add classes of new EAD applicants who are in E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1 or O-1 nonimmigrant statuses and have obtained approval of I-140 and their spouse and children based on the proof of "compelling circumstances." The new class of EAD for the principal foreign worker is designated as (C)(35) and their spouses and children are designated as (C)(36). This revision of the EAD application has already been cleared by the OMB on February 4, 2016 and is waiting for finalization of the pending final rule of Modernization of Employment-based Immigration Reform. The revised form background information indicates that the USCIS is estimating the number of eligible (C)(35) and (C)(36) EAD applicants will be approximately 155,067. Unlike other EAD applicants, these EAD applicants will have to go through the extra security clearance process in the form of biometric collection (fingerprint, photograph, and signature). Accordingly, on top of $380 for the regular EAD application fee, they will have to pay additional $85 for biometric collection fee. The estimate total numbers are relatively small because of the requirement of "compelling circumstances" proof. It is hoped that the USCIS does not apply too narrow standards for definition of "compelling circumstances." The Modernization rule is still undergoing the process of comment period which will end at the end of this month. It is not certain how long the USCIS will take to complete review of the comments and draft the "final rule" for OMB review to implement this new rule.

vikastaneja
02-08-2016, 02:44 AM
I'm sure I'm not able to see complete picture. Can you please elaborate a bit more why you're saying that our commenting is not working?

Check this out posted on Oh Law Firm...looks like Supplement Form J is approved...I take this as a minor signal that our commenting may not be working/have worked..I see this and am disappointed :(

02/07/2016: OMB Completed Review of New Form "Supplement J" to I-485 Form on 02/04/2016 Pending Completion of Rule-Making Process for EB Modernization Rule

The Supplement J form is created for the USCIS to verify continuing "existence" of I-485 employer's intent to offer the permanent employment, no matter whether in the context of initial concurrent filing of I-140/I-485 or subsequent change of employment by the foreign worker after 180 days of filing of I-485 applications using I-140 portability under Section 204(j) of the immigration statute. Again, the USCIS has gone through this new form enactment process to be prepared for forthcoming implementation of the pending rule of Modernization of Employment-based Immigration Reform. The foreign workers who are waiting to file I-485 applications or have already filed I-485 applications and either have changed employers or intends to change employer using portability under 204(j) provision may want to review this new form and instruction to learn when they will be required to file this new form after the pending Modernization Rule is finalized and implemented in the near future.
02/07/2016: USCIS Clears Revision of I-765 EAD Application Form to Implement Pending Rule of Modernization of Employment-based Immigration Reform

In preparation of completion of pending rule of approved I-140 benefits reform in the name of Modernization of Employment-based Immigration Reform of Obama's immigration actions, the USCIS has drafted revision of current EAD application of I-765 to add classes of new EAD applicants who are in E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1 or O-1 nonimmigrant statuses and have obtained approval of I-140 and their spouse and children based on the proof of "compelling circumstances." The new class of EAD for the principal foreign worker is designated as (C)(35) and their spouses and children are designated as (C)(36). This revision of the EAD application has already been cleared by the OMB on February 4, 2016 and is waiting for finalization of the pending final rule of Modernization of Employment-based Immigration Reform. The revised form background information indicates that the USCIS is estimating the number of eligible (C)(35) and (C)(36) EAD applicants will be approximately 155,067. Unlike other EAD applicants, these EAD applicants will have to go through the extra security clearance process in the form of biometric collection (fingerprint, photograph, and signature). Accordingly, on top of $380 for the regular EAD application fee, they will have to pay additional $85 for biometric collection fee. The estimate total numbers are relatively small because of the requirement of "compelling circumstances" proof. It is hoped that the USCIS does not apply too narrow standards for definition of "compelling circumstances." The Modernization rule is still undergoing the process of comment period which will end at the end of this month. It is not certain how long the USCIS will take to complete review of the comments and draft the "final rule" for OMB review to implement this new rule.

thankstooptx
02-08-2016, 08:25 AM
" It is not certain how long the USCIS will take to complete review of the comments and draft the "final rule" for OMB review to implement this new rule. "

It says that they have not yet reviewed the comments... the way I look at it is, In the worst case scenario that or commenting may be completely useless and fall on deaf ears but it is far better than not doing anything and hoping for different results. So keep commenting and spread the word.

nvedia
02-08-2016, 08:38 AM
Yes
Lets keep commenting more and more
We only have 20 days left....!

2008candid
02-08-2016, 06:05 PM
I am expecting detailed comment from IV about the proposed rule. Are we going to get one or we already lost hope?

Thank you.

nvedia
02-08-2016, 06:35 PM
Lets not forget to mention INA code 274A(h)(3) as many times as possible in our comment


Please mention the INA code 274A(h)(3). DHS has authorization under 274A(h)(3) to issue EADs to anyone. Please refer to this code that since DHS used the authority under this code to issue EADs to DACA recipients, H4 visa holders as well as looking to issue 5 million EADs to DAPA recipients, why cannot USCIS use the same code to issue EADs to H1B applicants with approved I-140s? No "compelling circumstance" was required in any of the other cases, why is it required now? Please ask USCIS to remove "compelling circumstance".

RandomizedPrecision
02-09-2016, 11:06 AM
I am expecting detailed comment from IV about the proposed rule. Are we going to get one or we already lost hope?

Thank you.
Nope. No hope for you. You can go back to moping, blathering on other forums rather than trolling here. Good luck!

vikidisi
02-09-2016, 01:25 PM
Stay tuned There are folks working heads down on creating a comprehensive document that will serve as IVs proposed second round of comments.

Also DHS does not review comments when a regulation is in its open comment period.

DMX17
02-09-2016, 02:02 PM
Stay tuned There are folks working heads down on creating a comprehensive document that will serve as IVs proposed second round of comments.

Also DHS does not review comments when a regulation is in its open comment period.

Should the backlog folks prepare to witness explosions in the mouths of the pro-backlog lawyers?

Just say yes!

2008candid
02-09-2016, 02:07 PM
Nope. No hope for you. You can go back to moping, blathering on other forums rather than trolling here. Good luck!


Not sure if you are authorized to speak and ask another member to go away from the forum. I don't consider this as a matured/civilized manner. My request was to admin/authorized person. I hope you will learn to behave yourself, don't show your filthy colour here.

messengerofgod
02-09-2016, 05:01 PM
Not sure if you are authorized to speak and ask another member to go away from the forum. I don't consider this as a matured/civilized manner. My request was to admin/authorized person. I hope you will learn to behave yourself, don't show your filthy colour here.

I think we are all authorized to speak our minds here :D

Lets be patient and grateful that an org like IV is fighting for us.

RandomizedPrecision
02-09-2016, 11:58 PM
Not sure if you are authorized to speak and ask another member to go away from the forum. I don't consider this as a matured/civilized manner. My request was to admin/authorized person. I hope you will learn to behave yourself, don't show your filthy colour here.
Please take your own advice, show some maturity and patience while folks continue to work hard behind the scenes. It is easy to ask questions like "have we already lost hope?" but much harder to exhibit the restraint that you claim to possess.

When you ask questions like "have we already lost hope?" you are no different than somebody who will cut and run when things get a little tough - if you are in it for the long grind then don't distract and disparage the folks who are working hard behind the scenes to get this shit done!

hil3182
02-10-2016, 01:35 PM
Please go through the newsletter.

Action Alert: We need your help to improve I-140 Regulation (http://newsletters.getresponse.com/archive/ivnewsletter/272704605.html)

We are in need of good real-life stories for the technical response to the regulation. Here is a direct link to the form: http://yourstory.immigrationvoice.org

Also, before people start, please don't make assumptions about us giving up or not giving up on anything.

jaguaero
02-10-2016, 05:05 PM
Just posted my story

GC2022
02-11-2016, 02:19 PM
done.

I am going to post more in different themes.

thankstooptx
02-11-2016, 02:46 PM
Done posting the comment... took a sentimental approach :)

nvedia
02-11-2016, 07:39 PM
Can someone please tell me how can I search for the companies who lobbying against I140 rule ?

Is this the correct website?

Lobby Disclosure Search (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx)

In the call it was mentioned that there was heavy lobbying from companies against this rule so wanted to check which companies were those

thankstooptx
02-12-2016, 10:11 AM
Can someone please tell me how can I search for the companies who lobbying against I140 rule ?

Is this the correct website?

Lobby Disclosure Search (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx)

In the call it was mentioned that there was heavy lobbying from companies against this rule so wanted to check which companies were those

Not sure... but I looked for Amy Nice and sure her name comes up quiet a bit

disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldxmlrelease/2015/Q3/300761097.xml

thankstooptx
02-12-2016, 10:24 AM
Can someone please tell me how can I search for the companies who lobbying against I140 rule ?

Is this the correct website?

Lobby Disclosure Search (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx)

In the call it was mentioned that there was heavy lobbying from companies against this rule so wanted to check which companies were those

So I just looked for client name = amazon and issue data = immigration and there it is in 2015 4th quarter they lobbied for "Issues related to high-skilled immigration" but there is no way to tell if it is for or against the issue.

Their other immigration related lobbying

Issues related to high-skilled immigration (Border Security Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, S. 744; SKILLS Act (Supplying Knowledge Based Immigrants and Lifting Levels of STEM Visas Act), H.R. 2131).


So I just looked for issue data = "high skilled immigration" there are 607 documents with companies ranging from Amazon, cisco, microsoft, google etc... but again there is no way to say which issues they are lobbying for.

DCToGC
02-12-2016, 11:20 AM
I am ardent supporter of IV and i appreciate all the efforts IV team has been putting forth to bring I 140 EAD/AP rule in reality. I might sound dumb however I have a basic question regarding I 140 EAD/AP Rule and our Legal Status in United States. Lets say we are issued EAD and AP , and we change our employment authorization to EAD from H1B. At the same time we can't file 485 since our dates are not current, can EAD /AP be considered as a legal status when we leave the country and try to re-enter on AP specially when we sidetracked our H1B. Can someone please clarify. appreciate your help.

hil3182
02-12-2016, 12:56 PM
Thanks for the stories so far. When it comes to "Horror stories" we think ones like the below will have maximum impact. Also delays with Visa Stamping and the the effect that has on your job, life and psyche will help:

There were couple instances that has stung my heart truly. One was a death of a friends' father just 3 days back. That fellow was stuck with the Visa extension paperwork and could not travel. The other one comes to my mind is another friend whose father passed away during the chennai flood situation. Being the only child in his family with both parents in India, one could not imagine the turmoil he would have undergone. Yet to hear from him if that person had reached chennai in time at least for the burial. He also was having his visa extension process going on. He had to come back only when the case gets approved. His family was left in US when he alone flew back to Chennai for the cremation.

All these are unknowns or knowns to the money mongrels who just hunt us down like a pack of dogs. This one rule is a damning example on how these filthy folks have taken advantage of us.

Sorry folks but these stories are there to haunt me down.



When it comes to "benefit from the EAD-AP for 140 rule" we think stories about missed entrepreneurship opportunities that are related to your Green Card petition will help us make the most impact.

Again, the link to submit the stories is here: http://yourstory.immigrationvoice.org/

Thanks again.

DMX17
02-12-2016, 02:12 PM
I am ardent supporter of IV and i appreciate all the efforts IV team has been putting forth to bring I 140 EAD/AP rule in reality. I might sound dumb however I have a basic question regarding I 140 EAD/AP Rule and our Legal Status in United States. Lets say we are issued EAD and AP , and we change our employment authorization to EAD from H1B. At the same time we can't file 485 since our dates are not current, can EAD /AP be considered as a legal status when we leave the country and try to re-enter on AP specially when we sidetracked our H1B. Can someone please clarify. appreciate your help.

Thanks for asking a good question. The point you bring is tricky indeed. But without doing much research on the issue of "authorized stay by the Attorney general" or "who can file AOS", I found an option in the DHS proposed regulation itself under compelling circumstances:

DHS anticipates that use of this proposal, if finalized, would be limited for various reasons. First, DHS believes that the other changes proposed in this rule to enhance flexibility for employers and nonimmigrant workers, if finalized, would significantly decrease instances where this proposal will be needed. Second, nonimmigrant workers will have significant incentive to choose other options, as the proposal discussed in this section would require the worker to relinquish his or her nonimmigrant status, thus restricting his or her ability to change nonimmigrant status or adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident. Accepting the employment authorization under this proposal, for example, would generally require the worker to forego adjusting status in the United States and instead seek an immigrant visa abroad through consular processing

I do not see much hassle even if we had to appear for a consular processing interview when the time comes.

DMX17
02-12-2016, 02:33 PM
The above post covered consular processing. Here is another wild idea to do AOS:

While we are working on H-1B with a valid I-94.....
1) Apply for EAD/AP
2) Once EAD/AP is approved AND your H-1B I-94 is still valid, leave the U.S. and surrender your I-94
3) Come back using AP as a parolee
4) Apply AOS

AOS statute 8 U.S. Code § 1255:
(a) Status as person admitted for permanent residence on application and eligibility for immigrant visa

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

So may be they can "prescribe a regulation" if they think parolees cannot apply for AOS.

Either way, you cannot have everything. Travel comes in.

DCToGC
02-12-2016, 03:35 PM
DMX17, thanks a lot for the responses. you are right, we cannot have everything. I guess time will tell us answers of some questions :) Thanks again

krish2005
02-12-2016, 04:47 PM
Thanks for the stories so far. When it comes to "Horror stories" we think ones like the below will have maximum impact. Also delays with Visa Stamping and the the effect that has on your job, life and psyche will help:


Originally Posted by krish2005 View Post
There were couple instances that has stung my heart truly. One was a death of a friends' father just 3 days back. That fellow was stuck with the Visa extension paperwork and could not travel. The other one comes to my mind is another friend whose father passed away during the chennai flood situation. Being the only child in his family with both parents in India, one could not imagine the turmoil he would have undergone. Yet to hear from him if that person had reached chennai in time at least for the burial. He also was having his visa extension process going on. He had to come back only when the case gets approved. His family was left in US when he alone flew back to Chennai for the cremation.

All these are unknowns or knowns to the money mongrels who just hunt us down like a pack of dogs. This one rule is a damning example on how these filthy folks have taken advantage of us.

Sorry folks but these stories are there to haunt me down.


When it comes to "benefit from the EAD-AP for 140 rule" we think stories about missed entrepreneurship opportunities that are related to your Green Card petition will help us make the most impact.

Again, the link to submit the stories is here: http://yourstory.immigrationvoice.org/

Thanks again.


-- Thanks Hil for citing my quote as an example. It was heart rending and I had to throw my heart out. Many of us have so much at stake and depend upon resolution or respite from this process bottlenecks. Thanks IV for fighting for us.

BTW I have also posted my own story in the area. I am still trying to find a way to answer my son on why I hesitate to travel out of the country for vacations once a year. Many others will have definitely life changing sad episodes that will always haunt them for life.

Krishna

nvedia
02-13-2016, 12:41 PM
Not sure... but I looked for Amy Nice and sure her name comes up quiet a bit

disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldxmlrelease/2015/Q3/300761097.xml

Thanks
I tried with 'Client Name' = immigrationvoice / immigration voice and see nothing in the results
How do I see the lobbying efforts of immigration voice ?

nvedia
02-13-2016, 12:44 PM
Thanks
I tried with 'Client Name' = immigrationvoice / immigration voice and see nothing in the results
How do I see the lobbying efforts of immigration voice ?

Not able to edit my own post but I tried the search for year 2014/2015/2016 and see nothing though I see some results for 2013

moon_walker333
02-17-2016, 11:11 AM
Today's comments:

Legal, Tax Paying, Law abiding immigrants are already suffering with decade long Green Card backlog. They must be given EAD and AP (Travel Document) once they have approved I-140 immigrant petition, without the need to provide complelling circumstances, so that they can freely change jobs and progress in their careers. This also provides benefit to American Citizens by providing a level field where Employers do not get undue advantage for hiring and locking H1B immigrants for years by filing for their Green Card.

The AP (Travel Document) will provide refief in travelling internationally hassle free and without the risk of getting stuck outside US leaving behind their Job, House, etc. assets in US.

There should not be a need to start a new PERM and I-140 application with new Employer. That is totally unnecessary and if at all that happens then this Rule is not really changing anything.

This rule in its current form does almost nothing to help retain highly skilled workers in US. It is very sad that USCIS is listening to lobbyists to come up with such an unfair rule and not involving the real high skilled workers in the process to come up with a fair rule. The administration must be fair with Legal immigrants if they want to build and maintain a strong Economy.

Only 11 days left for commenting. Looking forward to technical comments from IV Leads.

Drama Qeen
02-18-2016, 05:01 PM
Admin2/Viki/Pappu/Hil,

Where is the tech comments? Are you planning to post after March, 2016 ?

DMX17
02-18-2016, 05:10 PM
OK guys - relax and be patient.

Vikidisi has already said that people are working very hard on the comments. No need to post how many days are left, as I am sure everyone knows that.

abcdgc
02-19-2016, 12:08 AM
I used to follow Siskind on twitter. I unfollowed him for the following reasons. And if you don't know what deceit looks like then see there:

He retweeted the following two tweets:

"Sounds like @HillaryClinton just committed to introducing immigration legislation in her first 100 days as president."

"@SenSanders won't say how long it will take him to get #immigration reform passed if elected."

Because he supports Clinton, so he retweets that Clinton will "introduce" a bill in first 100 days. But for Sanders he retweets that Sanders won't say how long it will take to "pass" immigration bill. Introducing a bill and passing a bill are totally different standards.

Even President Obama cannot tell how long he will take to pass immigration bill. Clinton cannot commit either and if she did she would be lying, once again. What is the point of introducing a bill in first 100 days if Clinton cannot get that bill passed in the Congress for next 8 years?

Immigration lawyer wants establishment candidate. Clinton must be good because it will be more of the same. Therefore, Sanders must be bad.

Or wait, did Sanders say that he "opposed immigration bill because it created environment of exploitation of guest workers"? Ah! that make sense. This explains why immigration lawyers don't like Sanders. How else will immigration lawyers make money if Sanders is elected President. Because immigration lawyers don't like Sanders position on immigration, they want every one to think that Sanders is against immigration or immigrants. In reality, Sanders appear to be simply again stupid immigration laws.

To me this explains why Siskind hates Sanders.

casinoking
02-19-2016, 01:03 AM
I used to follow Siskind on twitter. I unfollowed him for the following reasons. And if you don't know what deceit looks like then see there:

He retweeted the following two tweets:

"Sounds like @HillaryClinton just committed to introducing immigration legislation in her first 100 days as president."

"@SenSanders won't say how long it will take him to get #immigration reform passed if elected."

Because he supports Clinton, so he retweets that Clinton will "introduce" a bill in first 100 days. But for Sanders he retweets that Sanders won't say how long it will take to "pass" immigration bill. Introducing a bill and passing a bill are totally different standards.

Even President Obama cannot tell how long he will take to pass immigration bill. Clinton cannot commit either and if she did she would be lying, once again. What is the point of introducing a bill in first 100 days if Clinton cannot get that bill passed in the Congress for next 8 years?

Immigration lawyer wants establishment candidate. Clinton must be good because it will be more of the same. Therefore, Sanders must be bad.

Or wait, did Sanders say that he "opposed immigration bill because it created environment of exploitation of guest workers"? Ah! that make sense. This explains why immigration lawyers don't like Sanders. How else will immigration lawyers make money if Sanders is elected President. Because immigration lawyers don't like Sanders position on immigration, they want every one to think that Sanders is against immigration or immigrants. In reality, Sanders appear to be simply again stupid immigration laws.

To me this explains why Siskind hates Sanders.
Special interests and lawyers hate everybody who is anti-establishment. Having said that, this Sanders guy was talking about exploitation of low skilled workers attracted by unions. He has never spoken against exploitation of workers who are hired as high skilled immigrants.

GC2022
02-19-2016, 10:53 AM
bernie said in another event that if he cannot get a bill passed he will use executive action.

Hillary side stepped ( she could also do executive action, but did not say it )

Both said its top priority.

But only bernie says about abuse of guest workers which is exactly whats happening to us.

bernie is the only one who says if corporations wants to bring in people let them play by the rules and pay market wages, he is on track. She is not.

Siskand can go F**k himself. He blocked me for asking legitimate q's.

eastindia
02-19-2016, 11:40 AM
Here's what Donald Trump could do as president — without Congress's help - Vox (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11050194/donald-trump-president-immigration-trade)

I love Donald Trump.
He will definitely close down this IT bodyshopping that is giving India a bad name. Restrict H1B and L1B program so that high paid people can come. Then close loopholes on greencards.

thankstooptx
02-19-2016, 02:39 PM
Here's what Donald Trump could do as president — without Congress's help - Vox (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11050194/donald-trump-president-immigration-trade)

I love Donald Trump.
He will definitely close down this IT bodyshopping that is giving India a bad name. Restrict H1B and L1B program so that high paid people can come. Then close loopholes on greencards.


Seriously at this point Hilary looks like a corporate drone. Feels like she wants to become a president because she want to become a president, there is no conviction in her debates. If it comes down to Trump VS Hilary I will root for Trump.

javelin768
02-19-2016, 05:06 PM
Here's what Donald Trump could do as president — without Congress's help - Vox (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11050194/donald-trump-president-immigration-trade)

I love Donald Trump.
He will definitely close down this IT bodyshopping that is giving India a bad name. Restrict H1B and L1B program so that high paid people can come. Then close loopholes on greencards.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
.......

Trump is running on hate....nothing can be achieved from hate and anger! He will come for us...because we are NOT one of them....it suits his agenda to come after any and all immigrants!

eastindia
02-19-2016, 05:25 PM
Trump will do what is good for America. Not what is good for Indians lawyers or companies.
That is what should be . Country is not for grabs to everyone and anyone. Only for deserving who make the country great. If we prove our worth which many already have then there is nothing to fear.
The malicious campaign. Is being spread by the other side . I am for making the country great and safe. If the country is great and safe it will help world become better.

HumHongeKaamyaab
02-19-2016, 06:56 PM
Trump will do what is good for America. Not what is good for Indians lawyers or companies.
That is what should be . Country is not for grabs to everyone and anyone. Only for deserving who make the country great. If we prove our worth which many already have then there is nothing to fear.
The malicious campaign. Is being spread by the other side . I am for making the country great and safe. If the country is great and safe it will help world become better.

Wow dude...you really believe that shit? Wow..heaven help us if Trump is president. It scares me that seemingly educated people like you are falling for his bullshit. Where do you think he will allocate resources if we becomes the president? Giving us greencards or feeding the seed of hate he promised? He will get ICE to conduct more and more raids, to which the illegals will push back hard on ..ultimately creating a deeper rift between immigrants and citizens of this country. For American citizens, Illegals and legals are BOTH immigrants and that legal vs illegal difference gets lost very easily upon the rednecks and idiots that vote republican. I got called Arab once and when I said I am from India...the response was " Doesnt matter to me..get the fuck out of my country"...so be careful who you think supports you ...

javelin768
02-19-2016, 07:30 PM
Wow dude...you really believe that shit? Wow..heaven help us if Trump is president. It scares me that seemingly educated people like you are falling for his bullshit. Where do you think he will allocate resources if we becomes the president? Giving us greencards or feeding the seed of hate he promised? He will get ICE to conduct more and more raids, to which the illegals will push back hard on ..ultimately creating a deeper rift between immigrants and citizens of this country. For American citizens, Illegals and legals are BOTH immigrants and that legal vs illegal difference gets lost very easily upon the rednecks and idiots that vote republican. I got called Arab once and when I said I am from India...the response was " Doesnt matter to me..get the fuck out of my country"...so be careful who you think supports you ...

Seriously!!! People don't understand what he promises! It's so easy to say he will be great based on a few lines you read on facebook, once you go deeper into the headlines and actually research this fellow...any level headed person will see through his Agenda!

I live currently in the most red state possible....ALABAMA!!!What I see here....scares the shit out of me!

This is the REDNECK state! Believe me when I say this.....SHIT WILL HIT THE FAN if Trump becomes president!
There is such an undertone of racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant attitudes here....Trump is already bringing is out in the open....and if he wins....GOD HELP US my friend!!!

Forget about Green cards and citizenship...people will be forced to GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!

There is a reason white supremacy groups have attributed their increase in membership to Trump...!!!!

subbuss
02-19-2016, 10:46 PM
Yeah. Trumps crazy. He's not gonna anything for us on pity or something.

Anyone know what this is about? Do these kind of hearings happen on a regular basis?
Meeting | Hearings & Meetings | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary (http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/the-impact-of-high-skilled-immigration-on-us-workers)

krish2005
02-22-2016, 04:23 PM
http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/latest-news/id=1202747411750/As-Court-Considers-Immigration-Action-a-Progress-Report-for-Employers?mcode=1395262324557&curindex=321&slreturn=20160122160414

They indeed admit the lobbying that we are aware thanks to IV's insight has made them swerve out of the promises in many rules not to mention that the EAD rule has been watered down due to "other pressures".

Waiting eagerly for IV's technical comments to be provided so that all of us can follow them diligently and wish and pray that it reaches the "LEAD filled" ears of those folks who sit on the decision making table for this rule.

A major disappointment came in September and October, however. The plan included a new procedure meant to improve the communication between the U.S. Department of State and USCIS to ensure every authorized employment-based visa is used each year. The plan was meant to help alleviate the long visa backlogs by ensuring that USCIS could accurately report its demand to the State Department. The new procedure allows applicants to submit their final "adjustment of status" applications based on reasonable predictions by the State Department of the yearly visa usage at the beginning of the government's fiscal year. While the plan as originally announced at the beginning of September would have allowed tens of thousands of employment-based immigrants to get their applications in to USCIS so demand could accurately be predicted, political pressure and fear of lawsuits caused USCIS to scale back the program dramatically, meaning that it now has virtually no practical impact for employment-based immigrants.

Read more: http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202747411750/As-Court-Considers-Immigration-Action-a-Progress-Report-for-Employers#ixzz40vwVVGjW

This was posted by by an immigration lawyer.
William A. Stock is a partner at Klasko Immigration Law Partners in Philadelphia and president-elect of the 14,500-member American Immigration Lawyers Association. He can be reached at wstock@klaskolaw.com.

Read more: http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202747411750/As-Court-Considers-Immigration-Action-a-Progress-Report-for-Employers#ixzz40vwFQmmN

thankstooptx
02-23-2016, 11:32 AM
http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/latest-news/id=1202747411750/As-Court-Considers-Immigration-Action-a-Progress-Report-for-Employers?mcode=1395262324557&curindex=321&slreturn=20160122160414

They indeed admit the lobbying that we are aware thanks to IV's insight has made them swerve out of the promises in many rules not to mention that the EAD rule has been watered down due to "other pressures".

Waiting eagerly for IV's technical comments to be provided so that all of us can follow them diligently and wish and pray that it reaches the "LEAD filled" ears of those folks who sit on the decision making table for this rule.

A major disappointment came in September and October, however. The plan included a new procedure meant to improve the communication between the U.S. Department of State and USCIS to ensure every authorized employment-based visa is used each year. The plan was meant to help alleviate the long visa backlogs by ensuring that USCIS could accurately report its demand to the State Department. The new procedure allows applicants to submit their final "adjustment of status" applications based on reasonable predictions by the State Department of the yearly visa usage at the beginning of the government's fiscal year. While the plan as originally announced at the beginning of September would have allowed tens of thousands of employment-based immigrants to get their applications in to USCIS so demand could accurately be predicted, political pressure and fear of lawsuits caused USCIS to scale back the program dramatically, meaning that it now has virtually no practical impact for employment-based immigrants.

Read more: http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202747411750/As-Court-Considers-Immigration-Action-a-Progress-Report-for-Employers#ixzz40vwVVGjW

This was posted by by an immigration lawyer.
William A. Stock is a partner at Klasko Immigration Law Partners in Philadelphia and president-elect of the 14,500-member American Immigration Lawyers Association. He can be reached at wstock@klaskolaw.com.

Read more: http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202747411750/As-Court-Considers-Immigration-Action-a-Progress-Report-for-Employers#ixzz40vwFQmmN

"political pressure and fear of lawsuits caused USCIS to scale back the program dramatically" ain't that some BS. I think we very well know who put the pressure on USCIS.

BTW the article is behind a paywall, to get around google the title of the article and click on the first link

https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=As+Court+Considers+Immigration+Action%2C+a+Progr ess+Report+for+Employers&gws_rd=ssl

shv
02-23-2016, 01:01 PM
Choose your wordings wisely while commenting, if you are mentioning any of the below keywords in your comments then understand what you are asking for:-

1) i140portability :- maintain H1b status, maintain H4 status and file H4ead for spouse, Mandatory endless H1/H4 extensions /transfers /stampings /refiling of perm & i140 not needed /little easier to change jobs.

2) i140EAD(work authorization) :- maintain H1b status, maintain H4 status and file H4ead for spouse, Mandatory endless H1/H4 extensions/transfers/stampings/refiling perm & i140/I140ead & H4ead renewals/cannot change jobs easily.

3) i140EAD/AP(Job mobility and work authorization) :- Optional to maintain H1b status, Optional to maintain H4 status and optional to file ead/ap for spouse/kids(over 18 years) [if not maintaining H1 status], Optional H1/H4 extensions/transfers/stampings and No refiling of perm & i140 required but EAD&AP renewals needed/change jobs easily.

DMX17
02-23-2016, 01:30 PM
"political pressure and fear of lawsuits caused USCIS to scale back the program dramatically" ain't that some BS. I think we very well know who put the pressure on USCIS.

BTW the article is behind a paywall, to get around google the title of the article and click on the first link

https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=As+Court+Considers+Immigration+Action%2C+a+Progr ess+Report+for+Employers&gws_rd=ssl

According to Mr. Stock, everything is fine and all should be happy "Overall, businesses and the immigrants they hire can be pleased with the progress that is being made"

Relaxed L-1B standards, more time on STEM OPTs, H-1Bs changing jobs on H-1Bs and infinite time on H-1Bs, H4 spouses working based on infinite time on H-1Bs,

We have nothing more to ask. I love my H-1B and H4 EAD.

Scumbags.

maddy1234
02-23-2016, 07:17 PM
Comment:
This is most ridiculous rule ever .. I do not support this at all in its current form.

Only immigration lawyers and blood sucking employers who prey on H1b Immigrants will benefit from this.

Lobbyists have won.

This will not help 99% of the EB community.

This also ruins the hopes and dreams of millions of hardworking, tax paying, legal immigrants.

Legal immigrants stuck in the backlog are under huge pressure. Without the ability to change employers freely, they are paralyzed and the employers are becoming filthy rich. This also puts a huge pressure on US citizens as a bonded H1b worker is more attractive at a lower wage.

Please provide EAD/AP for all the i 140 approved immigrants .. which will help with the wage inflation and it is good for the US economy

Please understand the hardship faced by legal immigrants and make changes to this rule, which can benefit the US economy and the legal immigrants .. not the lawyers and the filthy employers.

Please please please please end this modern day INDIAN-AMERICAN SLAVERY

vikastaneja
02-24-2016, 02:50 AM
Many of my comments are not yet published. I'm sure there are other people who are in the same boat.
What should I do in that case?

thankstooptx
02-24-2016, 10:34 AM
Many of my comments are not yet published. I'm sure there are other people who are in the same boat.
What should I do in that case?

I think it takes a couple of days if you don't see in a day or two Email/fax in your comment.


"You may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS- 2015-0008, by one of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: You may submit comments to USCIS by visiting Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Email: You may submit comments directly to USCIS by emailing them to: USCISFRComment@dhs.gov. Please include DHS Docket No. USCIS-2015-0008 in the subject line of the message. Mail: You may submit comments directly to USCIS by mailing them to: Laura Dawkins, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529. This mailing address may be used for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions. To ensure proper handling, please reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2015-0008 on your correspondence. Hand Delivery/Courier: You may submit comments directly to USCIS by hand delivery or courier to: Laura Dawkins, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529. The contact telephone number is (202) 272-8377. To ensure proper handling, please reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2015-0008 on your delivery."

thankstooptx
02-26-2016, 09:51 AM
Admins... with only 3 more days to go is IV holding back the comments on purpose, so the attorney group wont have time to sabotage it?

2008candid
02-26-2016, 10:23 AM
If that is the case, you are a stupid immigrant to disclose that here :(

thankstooptx
02-26-2016, 10:37 AM
I was asking for the plan and if the plan has changed... Initially we were told that we would need to post the second round of comments but now it appears IV is going solo. I am not asking them to share the comments, a look into their strategy would be helpful.

Ramalingam
02-26-2016, 11:39 AM
I was asking for the plan and if the plan has changed... Initially we were told that we would need to post the second round of comments but now it appears IV is going solo. I am not asking them to share the comments, a look into their strategy would be helpful.

There could be following reasons
1. If comments are put in last minute that may have more visibility. So still a few days left
2. IV might have already reached some conclusion after discussions with WH immigration team or DHS with the help of lobbyists. So strategy would have changed
3. All the aspects of comments wold have covered already and ran out of ideas for the comments

RandomizedPrecision
02-26-2016, 01:02 PM
I am kinda curious to see what the Sis-f'ing-kinds, his ilk and AILA have commented. Has anyone seen what they have posted?

I am sure those blood-suckers are going to wait till the last minute and do their usual commentary with a lot of legalese bullshit that, once you read between the lines, will continue to advocate for the status quo. Or they will only ask for trimming around the edges and act as if they are advocating for our behalf.

I think IV should do the same thing - wait till the last minute and then post the commentary. No need to expose the strategy earlier.

nvedia
02-28-2016, 05:09 PM
So, no new plans? Tomorrow is the last day ...

Showri
02-28-2016, 05:56 PM
Its like a movie climax. They can only get the comments ready by 4:50 PM EST tomorrow :). Lets hope USCIS website is not down at that time.

Ramalingam
02-28-2016, 09:16 PM
Its like a movie climax. They can only get the comments ready by 4:50 PM EST tomorrow :). Lets hope USCIS website is not down at that time.
It is normal that when traffic increases so much many servers cannot handle.

thankstooptx
02-29-2016, 10:29 AM
I am kinda curious to see what the Sis-f'ing-kinds, his ilk and AILA have commented. Has anyone seen what they have posted?

I am sure those blood-suckers are going to wait till the last minute and do their usual commentary with a lot of legalese bullshit that, once you read between the lines, will continue to advocate for the status quo. Or they will only ask for trimming around the edges and act as if they are advocating for our behalf.

I think IV should do the same thing - wait till the last minute and then post the commentary. No need to expose the strategy earlier.

Here it is.

http://blog.ilw.com/gregsiskind/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/02/comments-on-AC21-and-I-140-regs.pdf

AceMan
02-29-2016, 12:03 PM
Here it is.

http://blog.ilw.com/gregsiskind/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/02/comments-on-AC21-and-I-140-regs.pdf

What a moving letter !!! How articulate. Shame on people who can't see holier than thou person who put these sacred words to enlighten the sinned souls like us.

Let's open our arses, sorry purses for him to play around with.

moon_walker333
02-29-2016, 02:47 PM
So, on the last day of comments also all we are going to get from IV Leads is Silence??? Already we are so frustrated with the silence we get from USCIS.

Sharing a new plan/strategy/update with all of us would have been nice.

foia
02-29-2016, 03:13 PM
So, on the last day of comments also all we are going to get from IV Leads is Silence??? Already we are so frustrated with the silence we get from USCIS.

Sharing a new plan/strategy/update with all of us would have been nice.

Please do not end your comment with the word "nice". People are already screwed because of this nickname.

vikidisi
02-29-2016, 03:52 PM
IVs comments will be officially submitted later today. We will share an update once that is done. What some may see as "silence" - is quite simply a lot of folks heads down into other important work going on in the background including burning the midnight oil to get technical precision needed to make some of our arguments in this version of our comments.

d.kiran
02-29-2016, 04:17 PM
@vikidisi - So, can I take it to mean that at this point in time, the volume of comments no longer matter, the specifics and detail is what is most important ?

vikastaneja
02-29-2016, 04:38 PM
I see the count of number of comments have dramatically increased by 3K in the last 3-4 hours.
Also, I see the three comments - all of them are posted by law firms and all talking about opposing EAD adjudication period. None of them mentioned anything else. Seems like AILA is flooding the comments overshadowing previous comments. Any thoughts?

thankstooptx
02-29-2016, 04:39 PM
@vikidisi - So, can I take it to mean that at this point in time, the volume of comments no longer matter, the specifics and detail is what is most important ?

I guess Yeah at this point that is pretty much a given. Just anxious to see what IV is proposing.

thankstooptx
02-29-2016, 04:52 PM
All attorneys comments are showing up now and all of them are opposing to USCIS not adjudicating EAD's applications in timely manner nothing else. Showing their true colors.

"We are AILA members. We strongly oppose the part of the proposed rule that
would eliminate the longstanding requirement that USCIS timely adjudicate applications
for employment authorization within 90 days of applying or provide an interim
employment authorization document (EAD) for up to 240 days to certain applicants for
immigration benefits"

HumHongeKaamyaab
02-29-2016, 05:05 PM
All attorneys comments are showing up now and all of them are opposing to USCIS not adjudicating EAD's applications in timely manner nothing else. Showing their true colors.

"We are AILA members. We strongly oppose the part of the proposed rule that
would eliminate the longstanding requirement that USCIS timely adjudicate applications
for employment authorization within 90 days of applying or provide an interim
employment authorization document (EAD) for up to 240 days to certain applicants for
immigration benefits"

About 5,000 comments got uploaded today by the lawyers!!! And these bastards have phrased it in such a manner that it seems initially that they are REJECTING the rule, but when you read closer, its like they're objecting to one part that doesn't even matter and the implication being that we are ok with everything else in teh rule..except this small portion that we object to...WHAT UTTER ASSHOLES! Makes my blood boil...

vikidisi
02-29-2016, 05:38 PM
About 5,000 comments got uploaded today by the lawyers!!! And these bastards have phrased it in such a manner that it seems initially that they are REJECTING the rule, but when you read closer, its like they're objecting to one part that doesn't even matter and the implication being that we are ok with everything else in teh rule..except this small portion that we object to...WHAT UTTER ASSHOLES! Makes my blood boil...

Start a new thread and post any such findings and blatant examples of two-faced immigration lobby. Let's expose them.

We have repeatedly said over and over about the true intentions and the levels to which the special interest groups have been working heads down to water down this fix.

palciparum
02-29-2016, 05:44 PM
IV should telegram everyone with some new comments and I think we can easily get 1000-2000 new comments if we post for ourselves and our spouse.

shv
02-29-2016, 06:00 PM
Don't think 5000 comments got added today itself, the weekend comments were shown today and today's comments would be shown tomorrow or day after tomorrow.

It is expected from lawyers that they don't support us having EAD/AP benefit.

For people who are asking for IV technical comments, I don't think they gonna be different than what they've already shared with us/dhs... so instead of waiting, comment yourself with whatever good knowledge you have about the rule.

The comment should include the obvious:-

1) Provide unrestricted EAD/AP option for people with I140 approved and who have completed 6 years on H1b and who face and/or are facing huge backlogs to file AOS instead of proposing one time EAD benefit under compelling circumstances which only helps few 100's.

2) Oppose the rule completely

3) Current proposed rule is against president's EO

4) Mention the hardships faced/facing when dealing with huge backlogs like endless H1b renewals, stampings, transfers, refiling of perm/I140, not able to change jobs and causing severe damage to your professional and career growth, etc. Ask for removal of refiling of perm/i140 whenever employee changes job.

5) How the proposed rule affecting the US economy and american workers due to cheap labour exploitation etc

6) How lawyers lobbying for their own benefit and demand for FBI enquiry into it

7) Instead of providing one time Job loss grace period of 60 days, ask for 90 days grace period everytime jobloss happens.

hil3182
02-29-2016, 06:59 PM
URGENT Action Item: Final Comments for "EAD for I-140" rule - Immigration Voice (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/3096728-urgent-action-item-final-comments-for-ead-for-i-140-rule.html#post3595712)

pankajkchhabra
02-29-2016, 07:33 PM
Please Post your comment again as advised by IV email.

I oppose the regulation in its current form and would like to voice my support for Immigration Voice's comments with tracking number 1k0-8o8n-dqez

Link to submit comments
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=USCIS-2015-0008-0001

hil3182
03-01-2016, 05:43 PM
We have posted our full comments, details are in a new thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/3096732-technical-comments-for-ead-for-i-140-rule.html#post3595758).

devndev
03-01-2016, 06:34 PM
Thanks IV !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am yet to read and understand all the 24 pages... I can understand how much effort would have gone into this....

We have posted our full comments, details are in a new thread (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum16-iv-agenda-and-legislative-updates/3096732-technical-comments-for-ead-for-i-140-rule.html#post3595758).

viralmeh
03-02-2016, 01:38 PM
Thanks IV for all the hard work. I hope this effort will make meaningful changes in the regulation

I have a question,I am not very experienced in this and apologies if this was asked before and already answered.

Is there a remote possibility that the opposition/negative comments I see getting published can be seen by USCIS/DHS as a rejection by people and completely stop this regulation all together rather than updating and moving ahead ?

thankstooptx
03-02-2016, 03:15 PM
Thanks IV for all the hard work. I hope this effort will make meaningful changes in the regulation

I have a question,I am not very experienced in this and apologies if this was asked before and already answered.

Is there a remote possibility that the opposition/negative comments I see getting published can be seen by USCIS/DHS as a rejection by people and completely stop this regulation all together rather than updating and moving ahead ?

yes, there is a chance they will pull back the entire regulation, but I believe we had to take that chance, or else USCIS would fill its check box and move on and we will be left with no other options but to live with the regulation.

vikastaneja
03-02-2016, 03:50 PM
yes, there is a chance they will pull back the entire regulation, but I believe we had to take that chance, or else USCIS would fill its check box and move on and we will be left with no other options but to live with the regulation.

I agree. It is better not to have such regulation rather than having a broken one.
Then we can voice that POTUS has not delivered on his promises.

DCToGC
03-02-2016, 03:58 PM
After going thr' IV's comments on the proposed rule i think words would fall short to thank each one who contributed to draft the document. Such a neatly compiled document, Its a tight slap on the opponents of original EAD/AP rule and surely it will shut mouth of every immigration lawyer.

palciparum
03-03-2016, 02:31 PM
There is a petition going around for EB1C abuse and it comes on forums whenever visa bulletin is out and dates don't move as happened yesterday.

Per that petition and other post on various forums,
"Respected President & Congress members,

We would like to appraise you of a particular area of United States Immigration law that has a huge potential of fraud and misrepresentation along with being unfairly biased in favor of the people who choose to abuse it. We are talking about the Employment-based first preference category EB1C (International Managers). As you are already probably aware, the requirements for eligibility in that category is just a year of overseas managerial experience in a company that conducts business in both US and abroad. We are sure you will agree that compared to the fair and stringent requirements of EB1A (persons of exceptional ability) and EB1B (outstanding researchers), this is a rather simple qualification to prove. Moreover it opens up avenues for fraud and misrepresentation particularly by overseas companies doing business in USA to unfairly take advantage of this simple requirement.

The following example illustrates the fallacy:
Person A (originally from India) has a US masters degree in a STEM field and works for a company in a managerial job that requires a Masters degree and a few years of experience. This person can only file in EB2 category which is badly backlogged.

Person B (originally from India) has a bachelors degree in a STEM field and works for a company in a job that requires a Bachelors degree and a few years of experience. This person can only file in EB3 category which is even more severely backlogged.

In contrast, Person C (originally from India) works as some manager (over a year) in an Indian software company that also conducts business in the USA. This person can file in EB1C and will get preference over Persons A & B. Please note that for Person C, educational qualifications are irrelevant as there is no such requirement and moreover they are determined by the employing company. So potentially a person with a high school diploma can qualify in that category, not to mention that the prospect of frauds opens up exponentially. Contrast this with EB1A (persons of exceptional ability) and EB1B (outstanding researchers). In terms of immigration preference, person C is considered at par with a Nobel Prize worthy scholar (EB1A) or a renowned Researcher in a STEM field (EB1B). I am sure you are able to see the fallacy easily.

With the recent measures taken to curtail fraud in programs like H1B, the perpetrators have increasingly turned to this EB1C category. We would like to request you to kindly take up the matter with the appropriate authorities about this issue and restore some parity in the above categories. Ideally the EB1C category should be abolished or downgraded to a lower preference category.

Request your help with this.
Thanking you in anticipation,

Employment Based Legal Immigrant Community "

How true is this because there is no proof. There is increase in EB1C filing but does that prove abuse?

Some argue some degree of fraud/abuse is in every category - EB-1 or 2 or 3. Report abuse if you see.

Some argue that you may feel its fraud but you need to provide evidence. Others argue that USCIS/DHS should look in to it as how many managers does the country need that filings are increasing so much. Of course they are getting approved as proper paper work is being done.

What can people do about this - to find out the truth?

Because if EB1C fraud is real then julm karne wale se julm sahne wala jyada gunahgaar hota hai!