PDA

View Full Version : Keeping up with Rich Riley


DMX17
01-14-2016, 03:00 PM
In response to this
Draft Comment for High-Skilled Immigrant Relief (I-140 EAD Rule) | ImmigrationGirl (http://immigrationgirl.com/draft-comment-for-high-skilled-immigrant-relief-i-140-ead-rule/)

Rich Riley - Firstly, thanks for engaging with a poor soul like me.

I would appreciate if she will address the following questions while I have her attention and free expertise:

1) Where does it say in the law that for filing I-485, I must have the I-140 with the current employer or “future employer” where I intend to work upon receiving GC? Where does this concept of “GC is for future employment” come from? Using your own words, where are the statute and the regulation that IMPLEMENT the statute for adjustment applicants?
I am sure you have read my references (including AILA submission) on Immigration Voice on question 1) that show there is nothing in the Adjustment of Status section to support the current practices. Provide yours.

2) Show me the “other regulations” you mentioned when you say “It’s right there, and based on both AC21 and other regulations in place.”

3) If GC process is indeed for “future” employment, how come the labor certificates use “current prevailing wage” for “future time”? Shouldn’t they request new prevailing wage at the time of approving I-485? In fact, they should ask to re-do PERM itself because it may be that there are qualified people out there in the “future”. How can we say that a labor market test that was conducted 11 years ago is still valid?

What is laughable are your misleading statements which NOW imply that AC21 was created to “benefit I-140 beneficiaries” “due to slowness”, which the writers of AC21 forgot to list in the text itself. Did your mentor lawyer teach you this right out of school and you are repeating like a parrot? I am sure you know the reason why you are repeating this mantra.

Please keep your bright ideas of giving us GC faster to yourself, as your interests are to the contrary and you know it.

I too am all for “follow-the law” and I agree on the EB-2 job descriptions (which is a symptom of the backlog system that the lawyers have helped create). On the flip side, there are people who also think a Bachelor’s degree is not required to do many computer related work and that too there are too many here who can do the job. What is your solution? Open borders and more legal immigrants on H-1b with their endless "porting" you handed down 15 year ago?

Lastly, you and all of you are pro-immigration (not necessarily pro-immigrant). Be sure to donate to IV’s pro-immigrant efforts!

Bhishma
01-14-2016, 06:25 PM
Sounds like Rich Riley is an Immigration lawyer or an affiliate

DMX17
01-14-2016, 06:40 PM
Sounds like Rich Riley is an Immigration lawyer or an affiliate

She may be Rich alright and I bet AC21 has a lot to do that, which she loves so much that she came out and took it upon herself to defend it in random forum. See, they just cannot let go of this money making genie called AC21.

I commend her for being the symbol of the entire immigration lawyer clan!

Bhishma
01-14-2016, 06:53 PM
she came out and took it upon herself to defend it in random forum. See, they just cannot let go of this money making genie called AC21.

I commend her for being the symbol of the entire immigration lawyer clan!

They cant just let their cash cows go without giving a proper fight. Now is the time when all the wolves start crying loud and one wolf has definitely done her part

DMX17
01-14-2016, 07:06 PM
They cant just let their cash cows go without giving a proper fight. Now is the time when all the wolves start crying loud and one wolf has definitely done her part

These lawyers twist arguments in the direction that leads the cash cow getting fatter and fatter. Little do they realize (I think they do), they are contradicting their own self depending on where the argument is being made to achieve their money making agenda.

In that sense, let us not get fooled by all these people really showing off as if they care about the immigrants (legal or undocumented).

DMX17
01-14-2016, 10:47 PM
The president who signed the law himself cautioned at the time of signing that AC21 " "could weaken existing protections that ensure that the H-1B program does not undercut the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers and could also increase the vulnerability of H-1B workers to any unscrupulous employers using the program"

Yes, sir, it has! Thanks to the llikes of Aholes who are now writing blogs.

And now they want to continue the same feast and they are somehow receiving voices from heaven as to what AC21 wanted to do.

thankstooptx
01-15-2016, 12:10 PM
is there a reason why we are not trying to "remove dependents from the immigrant numbers", I would think this would reduce the number by quiet a bit.

DMX17
01-15-2016, 12:39 PM
is there a reason why we are not trying to "remove dependents from the immigrant numbers", I would think this would reduce the number by quiet a bit.

You will find good discussion and posts by Admin2 on IV forums. Pursuing that will be distraction that the fucking pro-fees lawyers would want us to take.

Mean while stay tuned for the next episode of Keeping up with Rich Riley.......

buffbloke
01-15-2016, 12:43 PM
is there a reason why we are not trying to "remove dependents from the immigrant numbers", I would think this would reduce the number by quiet a bit.

+1 to that. Can someone in the know explain why removing dependents from the count is not worth focusing on at this point? I believe a logical argument can be made on behalf of people staring at a decade long queue that we cannot put our lives on hold. Aging out of kids is a real issue too.
The only argument I can think of is the fact that this directly adds to the number of green cards being allowed, which is a tough thing to swallow for many lawmakers. Perhaps EAD is more of a procedural fix that can be a mutually agreed compromise where EAD's give us job freedom and lawmakers still get to say that they did not agree to increased number of green cards.

Just my guess.

vikidisi
01-15-2016, 02:12 PM
+1 to that. Can someone in the know explain why removing dependents from the count is not worth focusing on at this point? I believe a logical argument can be made on behalf of people staring at a decade long queue that we cannot put our lives on hold. Aging out of kids is a real issue too.
The only argument I can think of is the fact that this directly adds to the number of green cards being allowed, which is a tough thing to swallow for many lawmakers. Perhaps EAD is more of a procedural fix that can be a mutually agreed compromise where EAD's give us job freedom and lawmakers still get to say that they did not agree to increased number of green cards.

Just my guess.

- Cannot be done via Admin fix. Requires Legislation
- Bills that add a single new immigrant to the country will not pass given the political climate now
- Anyone that is trying to tell you that recapture or dependent exemption is something we should fight for, is trying to distract you and waste their own time. (There has been evidence of this over and over again of immigration lawyers harping on and on about it while there is no legal basis for it)

Bhishma
01-15-2016, 02:25 PM
- Anyone that is trying to tell you that recapture or dependent exemption is something we should fight for, is trying to distract you and waste their own time. (There has been evidence of this over and over again of immigration lawyers harping on and on about it while there is no legal basis for it)

Asking for new visas in this Congress is like trying to milk a bull. It wont get you anywhere but it will definitely help Immigration lawyers catch attention

DMX17
01-15-2016, 02:57 PM
Here goes my Friday off……but I can’t help the “kida” (bug)…

Here is an IV-style-keepin’-it-real post by a backlogged immigrant

AC21

You will see misleading and twisted claims by the lawyers that the idea of portability (job flexibility) did not exist before AC21 and therefore it must be true that AC21 is the reason for their being portability. The lawyers, who claim that portability did not exist before AC21, will not mention the true reason: that the idea of portability was not needed in the first before AC21. Why? The answer lies in the visa bulletins at the time. We all know they were mostly current! In other words, people did not have to worry about portability because unless there are “adjudication delays”, the immigrants applied and got their green cards. If an employer told the employee that they will not start GC process soon, the employee will transfer the H-1B (which would take some time) to another employer who is willing to do green card sooner. No problem, that much H-1B portability was enough to go from visa to greecard!

AOS Portability to I-140 Portability

First, it was called AOS portability meaning the AOS application remains valid and that is how it was originally developed to free the guy who would otherwise have to suffer for no fault of him own. The fault was with the agencies for taking long time. So here, the so-called “congressional intent” in AC21 204(j) to me is clear and that is to the help the immigrant in the last few months while he is waiting for GC while immigrant visa numbers were “available” (current). There are other places where it helps both the employers and employees (H1 extensions etc.) but that is not the topic of the debate as related to 204(j).

Over time, these filthy scumbags (outside lawyers and inside lawyers) have argued within themselves and likely managed to change “AOS portability” to mean “I-140 portability”. Now, the same scumbags are implying that AC21 gave I-140 portability. With AC21, Congress had no idea about all this shit and they were trying the help the poor immigrant facing “Adjustment Delay”. This is a well “crafted scheme” by the lawyers (NOT BY CONGRESS) under the cause of saving few in “removal proceeding” whose I-485 may have denied POST 204(j) 180 day period. While fucking all the others who are now stuck in backlog by creating the new concept of I-140 portability under AC21. So hats off to the slimy fuckers on this achievement!

Backlog

AC21 also added more work visas and of course not many employers apply for greed cards right away. The green cards that were supposed to be added were never issued and hence the cry about visa wastage (which is a separate issue). The result: Backlog which originated a decade ago. This happened POST AC21 and in fact as direct unintended effect of AC21. Not to tell us, that they will try to help us in backlog that was created with AC21 and we are going to use AC21 for that purpose beats the fuck out me!


Final Comment

My view is that the original employment based immigration system (with its laws) were designed to be quick in and out. With the creation and active sustenance of backlog, the system fails and new ways of “conceptualizing” have been created out of thin air such as the “green card is for future employment” idea. Now, we are to the point of discussing the symptoms of backlog (EB2 porting, EB1C abuse, and the list goes on), while any sensible way (e.g. real I-140 portability) to address the root cause which is backlog and its effect on immigrant are either not talked about, suppressed, or sidetracked by talking about solutions that will not fly.

Final Final Comment

Fuck you Rich Riley and all your buddies in the same profession for screwing with lives of the million+ backlogged immigrant!

thankstooptx
01-15-2016, 04:18 PM
- Cannot be done via Admin fix. Requires Legislation
- Bills that add a single new immigrant to the country will not pass given the political climate now
- Anyone that is trying to tell you that recapture or dependent exemption is something we should fight for, is trying to distract you and waste their own time. (There has been evidence of this over and over again of immigration lawyers harping on and on about it while there is no legal basis for it)

Got it... Thanks for taking time to elaborate.

gnh
01-16-2016, 11:43 AM
is there a reason why we are not trying to "remove dependents from the immigrant numbers", I would think this would reduce the number by quiet a bit.

Because INS/DHS has already said they have no authority to do it .

It needs an act of congress and no bill adding even one GC to the existing number will be allows through congress any time soon .

DMX17
01-18-2016, 05:45 PM
Thanks to user TTMM, there is finally a good comment in the link above.

DMX17
01-20-2016, 01:05 PM
Riley is conveniently ignoring the information flow in saying IV should not have leaked the memo (IV leaked memo from June meeting which clearly showed which class of people they were considering). Let me break it down:

The first memo, which proved THE LEGAL BASIS, was leaked Greg Siskind.
Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy | White House Proposal Would Grant Work Cards to Backlogged Employment Green Card Applicants (http://blog.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2015/05/15/white-house-proposal-would-grant-work-cards-to-backlogged-employment-green-card-applicants/)

Since it was clear that they have the legal basis to do this, they were then considering “which population” to allow this benefit to (as detailed in IV memo). So please give me a break and follow the sequence!

Looks like Riley is stuck on the laws and the so-called regulations/memo without actually pointing to regulations/memo that is supposed to implement the law (new proposed regulation not withstanding). The INA does not describe the process of Labor certification --> I-140 --> I-485 in a linear fashion (again I request Riley to enlighten us being a messenger and all). Each step is talked about as if I-140 step has nothing to do with I-485 step. If the answer is in a CFR, that can be changed, right? And there is a real need to do that for immigrants and American workers sake!

Honest questions (not out of frustration) to point out how inconsistent the current system is:
1) How many times a single alien has to prove that there is a shortage of his type of people? The fact that he/she is moving in a “same/similar” field with an approved I-140 is not enough? Nope, you have to re-start PERM say the lawyers. This is where it breaks and what break it is backlog (which were almost nonexistent prior to AC21).

2) Why penalize (i.e. redo GC process) the guy who wants to change jobs (to a new or same employer) against those who would like to be stuck for 11 years with the same position/employer forever (not redo GC process)?

So there are two “consistent” way to avoid this double standard:
A) Require that the guy who is stuck with the same employer for 11 years also has to re-do PERM/I-140 in the “current” time when he/she is receiving the GC.

B) Allow the guy who wants to change jobs to be flexible after I-140 approval so that he does not have to re-start GC process.

Which one is a sensible proposal?

I am sure 204(j) interpretations are the only argument Riley has. And we are still debating what it meant 15 yrs later. It only applied to a special group of people that were stuck in delays (as we are now albeit in a different way but more severe than those people). That is all there is too it and the meaning can be changed consistent with the plain language of 204(j) if the damn lawyers want to. But, obviously not.

Not a lawyer. All views are mine and not IV’s.

DMX17
01-22-2016, 12:22 AM
Since Riley and all lawyers are stuck on the issue of AC21 204(j) "interpretation of congressional intent" in telling us GC process cannot be ported and they do not provide their basis in regulation or memos, I present my interpretation and argument "consistent with congressional intent" strictly from AC21.

Since we are now talking about interpretation, I also argue that mine is as good as anyone else's.

I questioned why congress added "same or similar" in 204(j). Read on.


My analysis of AC21 204 (j) and argument:
Congress intended that an alien stuck in extensive administrative delays be allowed the flexibility to change jobs. In order to allow that, they wanted to make sure that the underlying Labor certification and petition remain valid. To make sure that the underlying Labor certification and the immigrant petition remain valid, Congress added same or similar requirement in 204(j). This means that Congress intended that once it has been established by the DOL in the Labor Certification process that there is a shortage of workers in a given field, a restricted mobility of such an alien with an approved I-140 within the same or similar field will not adversely affect the condition of other U.S. workers in fields that are NOT same or similar. Note that, by already having a Labor and I-140 approved, it was already proven that the alien will not affect the U.S. workers in the same or similar field. As such, the labor certification and the I-140 will remain valid as long as an alien moves in same or same field only.

Based on above reasoning, I argue that mobility of a worker who changes jobs in same/similar field with an approved I-140 (even before filing I-485) does not affect the working conditions of ALL U.S. workers (in and outside of his field). Therefore, a new labor certification/I-140 is not required as long as one moves to a same/similar job consistent with the meaning derived from Congressional intent in AC21. Since the proposed regulation changes the practice of automatic revocation of an approved I-140 after 180 days of approval, the same I-140 also remains valid for mobility within the same or similar field. And this I-140 should be allowed to be the basis for Adjustment of Status or Consular Processing with a different employer as long as that job offer is in the same or similar field.