chanduv23
09-25 12:59 PM
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/press/00/profcondfaks.htm
"Professional Conduct for Immigration Practitioners -- Rules and Procedures"
On June 27, 2000, the Department of Justice published a regulation in the Federal Register (at 65 FR 39513) concerning professional conduct for attorneys and other representatives (practitioners) who practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service).
The regulation, which was effective on July 27, 2000, explains procedures for filing and investigating complaints and for conducting disciplinary proceedings against practitioners who may be subject to sanctions. Its purpose is to protect the public, to preserve the integrity of all immigration proceedings and adjudications, and to maintain high professional standards among practitioners.
This fact sheet outlines the major regulatory provisions and answers certain questions that may arise among prospective complainants and practitioners.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This professional conduct regulation applies to every private immigration practitioner authorized to practice before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and DHS (including attorneys, accredited representatives, and law students, among others). This rule does not apply to Government attorneys, such as DHS trial counsel, because they are subject to separate regulations and disciplinary procedures.
Agency Jurisdiction
Each agency has jurisdiction over practitioners who appear before their respective tribunals. The Office of the General Counsel in EOIR will investigate and prosecute ethical complaints against practitioners involving alleged misconduct associated with practice before the Immigration Courts and the BIA. DHS will investigate complaints involving alleged misconduct associated with practice before DHS (e.g., asylum, adjustment of status, visa petitions, etc.).
Disciplinary Process
Any individual who believes that an immigration practitioner has engaged in criminal, unethical, or unprofessional conduct may file a complaint with the agency with jurisdiction (EOIR or DHS). The complaint must be in writing and include relevant names, dates, locations, and other details sufficient to clearly identify the offending conduct or behavior.
Upon receipt of a complaint, or on its own initiative, the agency with jurisdiction will conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine the merits of the complaint, informing both the practitioner and the complainant of any action taken. The office will dismiss without further action any complaint that is found to have no merit. The office may close a preliminary inquiry if the complainant fails to cooperate or provide reasonable information or assistance. During the preliminary inquiry, the complaint remains confidential unless the practitioner waives the right to confidentiality.
Hearing and Appeal
If a complaint is found to have merit, the agency with jurisdiction will issue a Notice of Intent to Discipline (NID) to the practitioner. The practitioner must respond to the NID within 30 days and may request a hearing. A practitioner’s failure to respond to the allegations in the NID in a timely manner may be treated as an admission of misconduct and a forfeiture of the right to a hearing. The BIA will then issue a final order imposing the sanctions recommended in the NID.
If a complaint about criminal conduct is found to have merit, it may also be referred to appropriate investigative or prosecutorial authorities within the Department of Justice or DHS. Complaints about unethical or unprofessional conduct may also be referred to appropriate local government or licensing authorities.
When a practitioner requests a hearing, the Chief Immigration Judge will appoint an Immigration Judge as the adjudicating official who will conduct a hearing and render a decision in the case. The adjudicating official shall not be an Immigration Judge before whom the practitioner regularly appears or who has intervened as a complainant or witness in the matter. The disciplinary hearing generally is open to the public.
Either party may appeal an adjudicating official’s decision to the BIA within 30 days. The BIA will conduct its appellate review of disciplinary decisions in the same way it reviews appeals of decisions in immigration proceedings. Final administrative orders in disciplinary cases are also subject to Federal judicial review.
GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING SANCTIONS
Disciplinary sanctions may follow if, among other things, a practitioner has been found to have engaged in conduct that constitutes a violation of one or more of the following grounds:
Charging a grossly excessive fee;
Engaging in bribery or coercion;
Knowingly or with reckless disregard makes a false statement or willfully misleading, misinforming, threatening, or deceiving any person;
Soliciting professional employment – a practitioner is prohibited from distributing solicitation material in or around the premises of any building in which an Immigration Court is located;
Is or has been subject to a final order of disbarment or suspension, or has resigned with an admission of misconduct, by any State or Federal court;
Knowingly or with reckless disregard makes a false or misleading communication about qualifications or services (e.g., practitioners must be recognized as certified specialists in immigration law in order to refer to themselves as such);
Engaging in contumelious or obnoxious conduct;
Has been convicted in any State or Federal court of a serious crime;
Falsely certifying a copy of a document as being true and complete;
Engaging in frivolous behavior;Engaging in conduct that constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel; and
Repeatedly failing to appear for scheduled hearings in a timely manner without good cause.
IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION
Provisions in the regulation permit the BIA to immediately suspend a practitioner who has been subject to either disbarment, suspension, or resignation with an admission of misconduct, as imposed by a State or Federal court, or conviction for a serious crime (including any felony). Thereafter, a summary proceeding will be conducted to consider imposition of any final discipline.
REINSTATEMENT
A reinstatement procedure will permit a practitioner to regain authorization to practice once his or her period of suspension before EOIR has expired or, as provided in limited circumstances under the rule, when the period of suspension has not yet expired. Prior to any reinstatement, the practitioner will be required to request reinstatement with the BIA and to provide evidence of good standing in his or her licensing jurisdiction.
FORMS
There are four EOIR forms in connection with the regulation concerning Professional Conduct for Practitioners:
EOIR-27 “Notice of Entry of Appearance before the BIA” – Practitioners must file the EOIR-27 to enter an appearance with the BIA. The form is used to:
Determine whether or not a practitioner is authorized under the regulations to represent aliens before the BIA,
Provide the represented alien an opportunity to expressly consent to the practitioner’s representation and to the release of EOIR records to the practitioner where required by law, and
Formally notify DHS and EOIR of such representation.
In addition, the form provides information regarding appearances and representation before the BIA, including the manner in which a practitioner may properly withdraw from a proceeding.
EOIR-28 “Notice of Entry of Appearance before the Immigration Court” – Practitioners must file the EOIR-28 to enter an appearance with the Immigration Courts. The form is used to:
Determine whether or not a practitioner is authorized under the regulations to represent aliens before the Immigration Court,
Provide the alien an opportunity to expressly consent to the practitioner’s representation and to the release of EOIR records to the practitioner where required by law, and
Formally notify DHS and EOIR of such representation.
In addition, the form provides information regarding appearances and representation before the Immigration Courts, including how a practitioner may properly withdraw from a proceeding.
Continued in next post
"Professional Conduct for Immigration Practitioners -- Rules and Procedures"
On June 27, 2000, the Department of Justice published a regulation in the Federal Register (at 65 FR 39513) concerning professional conduct for attorneys and other representatives (practitioners) who practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service).
The regulation, which was effective on July 27, 2000, explains procedures for filing and investigating complaints and for conducting disciplinary proceedings against practitioners who may be subject to sanctions. Its purpose is to protect the public, to preserve the integrity of all immigration proceedings and adjudications, and to maintain high professional standards among practitioners.
This fact sheet outlines the major regulatory provisions and answers certain questions that may arise among prospective complainants and practitioners.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This professional conduct regulation applies to every private immigration practitioner authorized to practice before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and DHS (including attorneys, accredited representatives, and law students, among others). This rule does not apply to Government attorneys, such as DHS trial counsel, because they are subject to separate regulations and disciplinary procedures.
Agency Jurisdiction
Each agency has jurisdiction over practitioners who appear before their respective tribunals. The Office of the General Counsel in EOIR will investigate and prosecute ethical complaints against practitioners involving alleged misconduct associated with practice before the Immigration Courts and the BIA. DHS will investigate complaints involving alleged misconduct associated with practice before DHS (e.g., asylum, adjustment of status, visa petitions, etc.).
Disciplinary Process
Any individual who believes that an immigration practitioner has engaged in criminal, unethical, or unprofessional conduct may file a complaint with the agency with jurisdiction (EOIR or DHS). The complaint must be in writing and include relevant names, dates, locations, and other details sufficient to clearly identify the offending conduct or behavior.
Upon receipt of a complaint, or on its own initiative, the agency with jurisdiction will conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine the merits of the complaint, informing both the practitioner and the complainant of any action taken. The office will dismiss without further action any complaint that is found to have no merit. The office may close a preliminary inquiry if the complainant fails to cooperate or provide reasonable information or assistance. During the preliminary inquiry, the complaint remains confidential unless the practitioner waives the right to confidentiality.
Hearing and Appeal
If a complaint is found to have merit, the agency with jurisdiction will issue a Notice of Intent to Discipline (NID) to the practitioner. The practitioner must respond to the NID within 30 days and may request a hearing. A practitioner’s failure to respond to the allegations in the NID in a timely manner may be treated as an admission of misconduct and a forfeiture of the right to a hearing. The BIA will then issue a final order imposing the sanctions recommended in the NID.
If a complaint about criminal conduct is found to have merit, it may also be referred to appropriate investigative or prosecutorial authorities within the Department of Justice or DHS. Complaints about unethical or unprofessional conduct may also be referred to appropriate local government or licensing authorities.
When a practitioner requests a hearing, the Chief Immigration Judge will appoint an Immigration Judge as the adjudicating official who will conduct a hearing and render a decision in the case. The adjudicating official shall not be an Immigration Judge before whom the practitioner regularly appears or who has intervened as a complainant or witness in the matter. The disciplinary hearing generally is open to the public.
Either party may appeal an adjudicating official’s decision to the BIA within 30 days. The BIA will conduct its appellate review of disciplinary decisions in the same way it reviews appeals of decisions in immigration proceedings. Final administrative orders in disciplinary cases are also subject to Federal judicial review.
GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING SANCTIONS
Disciplinary sanctions may follow if, among other things, a practitioner has been found to have engaged in conduct that constitutes a violation of one or more of the following grounds:
Charging a grossly excessive fee;
Engaging in bribery or coercion;
Knowingly or with reckless disregard makes a false statement or willfully misleading, misinforming, threatening, or deceiving any person;
Soliciting professional employment – a practitioner is prohibited from distributing solicitation material in or around the premises of any building in which an Immigration Court is located;
Is or has been subject to a final order of disbarment or suspension, or has resigned with an admission of misconduct, by any State or Federal court;
Knowingly or with reckless disregard makes a false or misleading communication about qualifications or services (e.g., practitioners must be recognized as certified specialists in immigration law in order to refer to themselves as such);
Engaging in contumelious or obnoxious conduct;
Has been convicted in any State or Federal court of a serious crime;
Falsely certifying a copy of a document as being true and complete;
Engaging in frivolous behavior;Engaging in conduct that constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel; and
Repeatedly failing to appear for scheduled hearings in a timely manner without good cause.
IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION
Provisions in the regulation permit the BIA to immediately suspend a practitioner who has been subject to either disbarment, suspension, or resignation with an admission of misconduct, as imposed by a State or Federal court, or conviction for a serious crime (including any felony). Thereafter, a summary proceeding will be conducted to consider imposition of any final discipline.
REINSTATEMENT
A reinstatement procedure will permit a practitioner to regain authorization to practice once his or her period of suspension before EOIR has expired or, as provided in limited circumstances under the rule, when the period of suspension has not yet expired. Prior to any reinstatement, the practitioner will be required to request reinstatement with the BIA and to provide evidence of good standing in his or her licensing jurisdiction.
FORMS
There are four EOIR forms in connection with the regulation concerning Professional Conduct for Practitioners:
EOIR-27 “Notice of Entry of Appearance before the BIA” – Practitioners must file the EOIR-27 to enter an appearance with the BIA. The form is used to:
Determine whether or not a practitioner is authorized under the regulations to represent aliens before the BIA,
Provide the represented alien an opportunity to expressly consent to the practitioner’s representation and to the release of EOIR records to the practitioner where required by law, and
Formally notify DHS and EOIR of such representation.
In addition, the form provides information regarding appearances and representation before the BIA, including the manner in which a practitioner may properly withdraw from a proceeding.
EOIR-28 “Notice of Entry of Appearance before the Immigration Court” – Practitioners must file the EOIR-28 to enter an appearance with the Immigration Courts. The form is used to:
Determine whether or not a practitioner is authorized under the regulations to represent aliens before the Immigration Court,
Provide the alien an opportunity to expressly consent to the practitioner’s representation and to the release of EOIR records to the practitioner where required by law, and
Formally notify DHS and EOIR of such representation.
In addition, the form provides information regarding appearances and representation before the Immigration Courts, including how a practitioner may properly withdraw from a proceeding.
Continued in next post
wallpaper .: Heavenly Sword :. by
coopheal
03-14 04:54 PM
This is like telling passengers to move to the other side of the boat when it starts sinking one side. The outcome is only making the boat sink faster. Remember, the huge backlogs are not completely due to unavailable visa numbers.
Unless there is a real need, moving from EB3 to EB2 dont make much sense.
Do not agree with this. This is not a fair analogy.
Nobody is saying IV should stop efforts for administrative and legislative fixes.
If someone has an option to switch to EB2, he/she should definitely try it.
Unless there is a real need, moving from EB3 to EB2 dont make much sense.
Do not agree with this. This is not a fair analogy.
Nobody is saying IV should stop efforts for administrative and legislative fixes.
If someone has an option to switch to EB2, he/she should definitely try it.
Macaca
06-09 08:58 AM
Was listening to NPR today and some anti-immigration group apparently sent 700,000 web faxes/emails to get the current CIR bill down. Try matching that at IV... Also mentioned that their members called the lawmakers in thousands.
The group is not NumbUSA. Some other group.....
From Immigration bill drew fire from both sides (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-immig9jun09,1,3157639.story) By Janet Hook and Nicole Gaouette, LA Times Staff Writers, June 9, 2007
Just one anti-immigration group, NumbersUSA, has sent more than 100,000 faxes and made thousands of calls to Congress since Wednesday. The intensity of that anger propelled some of the bill's opponents.
The group is not NumbUSA. Some other group.....
From Immigration bill drew fire from both sides (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-immig9jun09,1,3157639.story) By Janet Hook and Nicole Gaouette, LA Times Staff Writers, June 9, 2007
Just one anti-immigration group, NumbersUSA, has sent more than 100,000 faxes and made thousands of calls to Congress since Wednesday. The intensity of that anger propelled some of the bill's opponents.
2011 Nariko - Heavenly Sword
superdude
09-19 04:59 PM
I am with you.
To everyone who thinks rallies dont make a difference, as described here : http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13583
This is not an attack post. Or a criticizing post. This is purely educational and please keep this thread clean.
I know there are many out there who are snickering in their cubicles looking at the pictures of the rally and thinking "Look at these idiots, they think Congress will pass SKIL bill because they walked 1.2 miles with some placards and banners".
Such thinking is reasonable. But only if you dont know how things work.
Here is why rally of Sept 18th will be consequential:
1. When you do a rally, people notice. People recognize organization and measure its strength. It stays in their heads for a long time and they keep Immigration Voice as one of the organizations they can ask for support when they push for their own cause. In Congress, things work based on compromise, consensus and consultation. People dont just sponsor legislations they believe in. They run it thru their caucus and leadership and do a vote count. To find out how many votes would they get if they came up with this new idea. Whether it will get 218 votes in House. Whether they will get 51 votes in senate. If its filibuster proof and get 61 votes in Senate. Whether it has committee support. Whether leadership offices are in agreement to put it in schedule. All this happens in background and there are people who are hired in committees just to do vote counts on proposed ideas. IF it turns out they dont find enough support, they drop it. If they think they can pull it off, they approach leadership (Speaker in House, Maj leader in Senate) to put it in queue.
2. Let us say that Congressman X wants to sponser SKIL bill because of his constituency or a senator (like Feinstein) wants to sponsor AgJobs because food growers are having food rotten in absence of agricultural workers, a compelling cause. Now, when they want to pass legislation, they have to look for support and votes as described in item 1. When they fall short, they find ways to sweeten the pot. IF they see that a powerful organization will throw in their support and lobbying in favor of their bill if they attach a few of that organization's provisions, then they approach them. Immigration Voice did 138 lawmakers meetings (in House and Senate). They did the rally. They would consider IV as a organization that can help them PUSH for their legislation. Now we have a place at the negotiating table. If they attach our provisions (like recapture, or GC quota increase), then we can promise to do something for them. Like support the entire bill they are pushing for. They know that we can do rallies and we can do hundreds of lawmaker meetings. If Diane Feinstein (just an example) thinks that by adding skilled employment based reform provisions she can get IV's support and swing a few votes to help her pass her favorite AgJobs bill, then we have opportunity where the Senator would ask us what we want rather than us going and asking them to do things for us. One of IV members said that on the day of the rally, suddenly the office of her senator called her and scheduled and appointment to meet the same day at 4:00 PM. She had been trying to get the appointment but after they rally and Roll call newspaper ad (http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/rollcal3a.pdf), they called her to listen to her. I heard about this from her just as the rally was over.
3. CIR has recently failed. From some meetings, I got the feeling that CIR's failure has left a bad taste in mouth and many people in Congress as well as administration are very upset about it still. Now that we have done this rally, done lawmaker meetings, put a rollcall ad, did the media blitz, press conference, congressional reception (where 4 congressmen attended and spoke in IV's support), they know that it would be a good idea to keep IV on their side and put some of their things in a bill. Next time they write a bill (behind closed doors very often), they will consult us and ask us if they can do something for IV to win IV's full support. That's because by getting IV's support on their side for whatever they are doing, they can be assured that we wont oppose it but instead support it. With phone calls, Rallies, paid ads, lawmaker meetings etc. If they are really investing in getting a bill passed, they would include our provisions just to increase the odds.
Strength respects strength. If we have the strength to do things and make a difference (rallies, meetings, receptions, press conferences, paid ads), then that strength begets more strenght because other powers want us to join hands with them so that they can do their favorite things (AgJobs, DREAM etc).
To everyone who thinks rallies dont make a difference, as described here : http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13583
This is not an attack post. Or a criticizing post. This is purely educational and please keep this thread clean.
I know there are many out there who are snickering in their cubicles looking at the pictures of the rally and thinking "Look at these idiots, they think Congress will pass SKIL bill because they walked 1.2 miles with some placards and banners".
Such thinking is reasonable. But only if you dont know how things work.
Here is why rally of Sept 18th will be consequential:
1. When you do a rally, people notice. People recognize organization and measure its strength. It stays in their heads for a long time and they keep Immigration Voice as one of the organizations they can ask for support when they push for their own cause. In Congress, things work based on compromise, consensus and consultation. People dont just sponsor legislations they believe in. They run it thru their caucus and leadership and do a vote count. To find out how many votes would they get if they came up with this new idea. Whether it will get 218 votes in House. Whether they will get 51 votes in senate. If its filibuster proof and get 61 votes in Senate. Whether it has committee support. Whether leadership offices are in agreement to put it in schedule. All this happens in background and there are people who are hired in committees just to do vote counts on proposed ideas. IF it turns out they dont find enough support, they drop it. If they think they can pull it off, they approach leadership (Speaker in House, Maj leader in Senate) to put it in queue.
2. Let us say that Congressman X wants to sponser SKIL bill because of his constituency or a senator (like Feinstein) wants to sponsor AgJobs because food growers are having food rotten in absence of agricultural workers, a compelling cause. Now, when they want to pass legislation, they have to look for support and votes as described in item 1. When they fall short, they find ways to sweeten the pot. IF they see that a powerful organization will throw in their support and lobbying in favor of their bill if they attach a few of that organization's provisions, then they approach them. Immigration Voice did 138 lawmakers meetings (in House and Senate). They did the rally. They would consider IV as a organization that can help them PUSH for their legislation. Now we have a place at the negotiating table. If they attach our provisions (like recapture, or GC quota increase), then we can promise to do something for them. Like support the entire bill they are pushing for. They know that we can do rallies and we can do hundreds of lawmaker meetings. If Diane Feinstein (just an example) thinks that by adding skilled employment based reform provisions she can get IV's support and swing a few votes to help her pass her favorite AgJobs bill, then we have opportunity where the Senator would ask us what we want rather than us going and asking them to do things for us. One of IV members said that on the day of the rally, suddenly the office of her senator called her and scheduled and appointment to meet the same day at 4:00 PM. She had been trying to get the appointment but after they rally and Roll call newspaper ad (http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/rollcal3a.pdf), they called her to listen to her. I heard about this from her just as the rally was over.
3. CIR has recently failed. From some meetings, I got the feeling that CIR's failure has left a bad taste in mouth and many people in Congress as well as administration are very upset about it still. Now that we have done this rally, done lawmaker meetings, put a rollcall ad, did the media blitz, press conference, congressional reception (where 4 congressmen attended and spoke in IV's support), they know that it would be a good idea to keep IV on their side and put some of their things in a bill. Next time they write a bill (behind closed doors very often), they will consult us and ask us if they can do something for IV to win IV's full support. That's because by getting IV's support on their side for whatever they are doing, they can be assured that we wont oppose it but instead support it. With phone calls, Rallies, paid ads, lawmaker meetings etc. If they are really investing in getting a bill passed, they would include our provisions just to increase the odds.
Strength respects strength. If we have the strength to do things and make a difference (rallies, meetings, receptions, press conferences, paid ads), then that strength begets more strenght because other powers want us to join hands with them so that they can do their favorite things (AgJobs, DREAM etc).
more...
chmur
07-18 07:05 PM
you must know something i don't.
aman kapoor is the president and founder of iv- of course you can argue he now has his GC but that fact is he is still the heart and soul of iv and runs the organization on a day to day basis. he is EB3.
the "core group" does not much exist in practical terms right now. there is instead a large "leaders group" that helps coordinate actions and strategy.
this group has a lot of active members- and i find it "comfortable" to say that the majority are EB3. which may actually count for something- since i actually do know somethings you don't :-)
no one stops anyone from doing anything. but whatever you do (and yes you actually have to DO, not just keep talking), has to have a sound basis. Many of the suggestions put forward have flaws, and actually papu and others have been pretty helpful in politely helping to point those out and suggesting changes. of course reddog took objection even to that! incidentally, just for the record, you may want to look at pappu's profile . HE IS EB3!
so what do you want anyway? should we go tell USCIS that leftover Gc from EB2 ROW should go to EB3 ROW instead of EB2 I/C? what about the 28.6% that should belong to EB2? and since you are EB3 I- how does this help you in any way? or should we tell them to stop the preference catogories in INA and make EB1=EB2=Eb3? somehow i do not think that is going to fly.
where were you when USCIS implemented vertical spillover in 2006 and left EB2 I in a U state while giving EB2 Gc numbers to EB3 ROW?
did you object then? did you start a campaign? did EB2 I folks here start saying that iv did not care about them?
in 2007 ordinarily, (like 06) EB2 I and EB3 I would have got only 2,800 GC each. because of iv's efforts in reversing the july bulletin, EB3 I got a huge number of Gc instead. many more than any other category. i don't remember anyone else standing up and saying that this was unfair and that iv is all about EB3I. and that's what a lot of anti iv folks say. that iv is all about EB3 India. so this is very ironical.
and i see here a comment that every campaign has been bad for EB3 india.
i guess july reversal was bad. i guess the campaign for recapture is bad. and the 2 year EAD is bad too. not to mention the gathering support to end country quotas.
you opened my eyes :-)
Good post . And there is no basis for anyone to accuse IV of being anti EB3 or anti -anything immigration related . It's a truly fantastic organization .
That said, EB3's concern are real and not based on Jealousy. Everyone should support recapture effort but I do not think that is the only solution.
Challenging/airing concerns over DOS 's spill over distribution is a valid issue too. May not be as important as recapture issue but still important like 2 year EAD/AP,s etc.
aman kapoor is the president and founder of iv- of course you can argue he now has his GC but that fact is he is still the heart and soul of iv and runs the organization on a day to day basis. he is EB3.
the "core group" does not much exist in practical terms right now. there is instead a large "leaders group" that helps coordinate actions and strategy.
this group has a lot of active members- and i find it "comfortable" to say that the majority are EB3. which may actually count for something- since i actually do know somethings you don't :-)
no one stops anyone from doing anything. but whatever you do (and yes you actually have to DO, not just keep talking), has to have a sound basis. Many of the suggestions put forward have flaws, and actually papu and others have been pretty helpful in politely helping to point those out and suggesting changes. of course reddog took objection even to that! incidentally, just for the record, you may want to look at pappu's profile . HE IS EB3!
so what do you want anyway? should we go tell USCIS that leftover Gc from EB2 ROW should go to EB3 ROW instead of EB2 I/C? what about the 28.6% that should belong to EB2? and since you are EB3 I- how does this help you in any way? or should we tell them to stop the preference catogories in INA and make EB1=EB2=Eb3? somehow i do not think that is going to fly.
where were you when USCIS implemented vertical spillover in 2006 and left EB2 I in a U state while giving EB2 Gc numbers to EB3 ROW?
did you object then? did you start a campaign? did EB2 I folks here start saying that iv did not care about them?
in 2007 ordinarily, (like 06) EB2 I and EB3 I would have got only 2,800 GC each. because of iv's efforts in reversing the july bulletin, EB3 I got a huge number of Gc instead. many more than any other category. i don't remember anyone else standing up and saying that this was unfair and that iv is all about EB3I. and that's what a lot of anti iv folks say. that iv is all about EB3 India. so this is very ironical.
and i see here a comment that every campaign has been bad for EB3 india.
i guess july reversal was bad. i guess the campaign for recapture is bad. and the 2 year EAD is bad too. not to mention the gathering support to end country quotas.
you opened my eyes :-)
Good post . And there is no basis for anyone to accuse IV of being anti EB3 or anti -anything immigration related . It's a truly fantastic organization .
That said, EB3's concern are real and not based on Jealousy. Everyone should support recapture effort but I do not think that is the only solution.
Challenging/airing concerns over DOS 's spill over distribution is a valid issue too. May not be as important as recapture issue but still important like 2 year EAD/AP,s etc.
felix31
07-24 11:45 AM
joining the club...
my I-485 was nicely pending @ TSC, and the company just sent H1 papers off to VSC for processing, so I can come back on H1. I am currently sitting in London (working for my GC employer from their UK office), when I got the Card Production E-mail. My previous H1 approval expired in March.
My EAD will expire next month, as well as AP. So, here is the rub, they will not let me come back to US on AP since system shows GC approved, H1 will be rejected since GC is approved.
needless to say PD is not current. I kind of remember having an approved RIR Labor with PD June 2004, but I dont remember having sent for I-140...No idea what to do and how to check that.
Dont trust company's lawyer, and I sent all I-485 papers by myself back in July 2007. I have an attorney that I bug from time to time but he is on vacation now...
So... am I completely screwed...?
My employer transfered me from US to UK couple of months ago, now they are transfering me back. I did go for H1 stamping in Dec here in London and IO said something like, my GC is taking too long, he will check why I dont already have it..
Just venting here, no clue whom to talk to next....
Any suggestions are welcome...
my I-485 was nicely pending @ TSC, and the company just sent H1 papers off to VSC for processing, so I can come back on H1. I am currently sitting in London (working for my GC employer from their UK office), when I got the Card Production E-mail. My previous H1 approval expired in March.
My EAD will expire next month, as well as AP. So, here is the rub, they will not let me come back to US on AP since system shows GC approved, H1 will be rejected since GC is approved.
needless to say PD is not current. I kind of remember having an approved RIR Labor with PD June 2004, but I dont remember having sent for I-140...No idea what to do and how to check that.
Dont trust company's lawyer, and I sent all I-485 papers by myself back in July 2007. I have an attorney that I bug from time to time but he is on vacation now...
So... am I completely screwed...?
My employer transfered me from US to UK couple of months ago, now they are transfering me back. I did go for H1 stamping in Dec here in London and IO said something like, my GC is taking too long, he will check why I dont already have it..
Just venting here, no clue whom to talk to next....
Any suggestions are welcome...
more...
Abhinaym
01-14 03:14 PM
you are half right, the country quota laws were put much earlier than the off shoring companies, but remember that the retrogression only started in the last 10 years when those companies came in the picture and skewed the lines .. that's ur cause and effect!
I am in software and would be satisfied with resticting this rule to the software field, but feasibility wise, rules won't get micro-tailored this way.
I always tell myself i shouldn't go on with the discussion, but here i go again..
any 12 step process to quit?
So what? Just because they came and skewed the lines doesn't mean you can choose where you're born or when. the rule is unfair wihtout any reason. there is no graceful solution short of removing the quotas. anyway I doubt fairness is the reason you're so fond of this quota.
Here's a one step way to quit.
1. Accept that the reason you're defending this useless rule is that it benefits you.
I am in software and would be satisfied with resticting this rule to the software field, but feasibility wise, rules won't get micro-tailored this way.
I always tell myself i shouldn't go on with the discussion, but here i go again..
any 12 step process to quit?
So what? Just because they came and skewed the lines doesn't mean you can choose where you're born or when. the rule is unfair wihtout any reason. there is no graceful solution short of removing the quotas. anyway I doubt fairness is the reason you're so fond of this quota.
Here's a one step way to quit.
1. Accept that the reason you're defending this useless rule is that it benefits you.
2010 heavenly sword wallpaper. Heavenly Sword 470 x 272 (PSP)
eb_retrogession
03-17 11:17 AM
I dont see anything which will allow us to file for 485 as soon as the labor is approved, s1932 had a point whcih would allow us to file for 485 without waiting for the priority date.
Or am I missing some thing.
If this amendment can be included, and all our provisions passed, then Bill Frist for president :D
Or am I missing some thing.
If this amendment can be included, and all our provisions passed, then Bill Frist for president :D
more...
sgH1
05-19 02:52 PM
sent emails
hair Heavenly Sword wallpaper
santb1975
02-08 03:30 PM
We really need you and Franklin to give a Shout out to So.Cal. We really need to wake IV'ans up in So.Cal
Templar of the Temple Templates, have fun :)
Templar of the Temple Templates, have fun :)
more...
smisachu
08-05 03:04 PM
I m a new applicant for EB 3 gc born in india.....just starting my process......with my PD being sometime in later half of 2009,do u think canada is a better option?......EB 3 india right now looks like a good 10-12 years wait time!!.......pls advice about canada immigration and is it a viable option?
No, Canada is not a better option. INDIA!! is a better option. You got to get it out of your mind that you need to go somewhere. It is different in the US because you have some industries and jobs here that you cannot get anywhere else. Also a certian lifestyle. But common Canada, eastern Europe, Africa... you guys are nuts.
India is a MUCH better option than anywhere else except maybe if you get a real good job in China. As far as I am concerned if nothing happens here I am headed back to my hometown-Bangalore, India.
I have much better lifestyle and opportunities than Canada or even western europe! Period.
No, Canada is not a better option. INDIA!! is a better option. You got to get it out of your mind that you need to go somewhere. It is different in the US because you have some industries and jobs here that you cannot get anywhere else. Also a certian lifestyle. But common Canada, eastern Europe, Africa... you guys are nuts.
India is a MUCH better option than anywhere else except maybe if you get a real good job in China. As far as I am concerned if nothing happens here I am headed back to my hometown-Bangalore, India.
I have much better lifestyle and opportunities than Canada or even western europe! Period.
hot Red Hair - Heavenly Sword
kate123
02-14 10:18 PM
Dude,
Be pragmatic. How can you ask CIS NOT to raise RFE's for EAD extensions? If they find some thing fishy they would definitely dig the issue. Remember, CIS is not working for you or for me. I cannot stop laughing!
One more thing which I do not understand is how prefiling of AOS is related to Remove\dilute same similar job requirement? If you feel there is so much of importance for your SO COMPLEX CUSTOMIZED REQUIREMENT then why dont you start a new action item and gather people?
I hate to say this but your post is SO ridiculous which clearly implies that there is no place for people in IV who have PD's after may 2007.
I have a strong advice for you... 'THINK B4 U INK'
I hear some people saying childish things like hijacking this thread if anybody says anything different from what they say. What do you prefer, should I open another thread with title "oppose prefiling AOS", nobody wins neither will I or you when somebody does that. Please tolerate others views then they will tolerate yours.
Without strengthening AC21 if you allow everyone to file AOS then anti eb folks like Grassley, Sanders, Sessions, Durbin will move from targeting H1b to targeting EAD. It takes 6 months to get Perm approval, with pre filing AOS everyone can get EAD in 6 months, anti eb folks and USCIS know that people will be jumping to EAD to escape H1 crackdown, what do you think they will do, they will add amendments and Bills to put restrictions on hiring EAD just like they put restrictions on hiring H1b. We cannot make EAD into another H1b like hell.
Prefiling should be done to give relief to people who missed July fiasco only after
1. Remove\dilute same similar job requirement
2. Make sure EAD is extended without any rfe. USCIS will invent thousand things to issue rfe, EAD should be in a different league to h1 and it should not turn into another h1 where you are slapped with rfe left right and center. Example Pay stub rfe, ability to pay rfe, customer Purchase order RFE etc etc etc, Green card holders don’t have any problem working in these same jobs so why should EAD people face this nonsense (otherwise it is just like h1). Before people complain this will become like a green card, lets me answer in advance, if a person from ROW can get his green card within 12 months of coming to US, why cannot people from India\china who have worked in US for the last 5 to 10 years get the above mentioned relief on EAD. EAD should be superior to h1.the only restriction should be you should work in the same field, i.e. if your labor certification is for Software engineer, programmer analyst etc , then you work in a software related job and cannot become a greeter in walmart :-)
Without strengthening EAD\AC21 with the above mentioned items you are turning EAD into just another h1.If we push for prefiling AOS without strengthening Ac21 it is a big disadvantage and slap on the face for all the people with older priority date. Because of July fiasco when everybody got current and filed for AOS, USCIS issued GC to people from 2006 leaving behind people from 2003, 04 and 05. USCIS should have gradually moved the dates from 2003 to 04 to 05 that way people with older PD would have got it first. With prefiling AOS it will become a lottery like in August 2008 where 2006 PD got GC over 03,04 and 05 in eb2. Safeguards have to be put in place for order of priority date otherwise USCIS will indulge in this lottery mode and excuse there behavior by claiming they did this to save visa wastage.
Be pragmatic. How can you ask CIS NOT to raise RFE's for EAD extensions? If they find some thing fishy they would definitely dig the issue. Remember, CIS is not working for you or for me. I cannot stop laughing!
One more thing which I do not understand is how prefiling of AOS is related to Remove\dilute same similar job requirement? If you feel there is so much of importance for your SO COMPLEX CUSTOMIZED REQUIREMENT then why dont you start a new action item and gather people?
I hate to say this but your post is SO ridiculous which clearly implies that there is no place for people in IV who have PD's after may 2007.
I have a strong advice for you... 'THINK B4 U INK'
I hear some people saying childish things like hijacking this thread if anybody says anything different from what they say. What do you prefer, should I open another thread with title "oppose prefiling AOS", nobody wins neither will I or you when somebody does that. Please tolerate others views then they will tolerate yours.
Without strengthening AC21 if you allow everyone to file AOS then anti eb folks like Grassley, Sanders, Sessions, Durbin will move from targeting H1b to targeting EAD. It takes 6 months to get Perm approval, with pre filing AOS everyone can get EAD in 6 months, anti eb folks and USCIS know that people will be jumping to EAD to escape H1 crackdown, what do you think they will do, they will add amendments and Bills to put restrictions on hiring EAD just like they put restrictions on hiring H1b. We cannot make EAD into another H1b like hell.
Prefiling should be done to give relief to people who missed July fiasco only after
1. Remove\dilute same similar job requirement
2. Make sure EAD is extended without any rfe. USCIS will invent thousand things to issue rfe, EAD should be in a different league to h1 and it should not turn into another h1 where you are slapped with rfe left right and center. Example Pay stub rfe, ability to pay rfe, customer Purchase order RFE etc etc etc, Green card holders don’t have any problem working in these same jobs so why should EAD people face this nonsense (otherwise it is just like h1). Before people complain this will become like a green card, lets me answer in advance, if a person from ROW can get his green card within 12 months of coming to US, why cannot people from India\china who have worked in US for the last 5 to 10 years get the above mentioned relief on EAD. EAD should be superior to h1.the only restriction should be you should work in the same field, i.e. if your labor certification is for Software engineer, programmer analyst etc , then you work in a software related job and cannot become a greeter in walmart :-)
Without strengthening EAD\AC21 with the above mentioned items you are turning EAD into just another h1.If we push for prefiling AOS without strengthening Ac21 it is a big disadvantage and slap on the face for all the people with older priority date. Because of July fiasco when everybody got current and filed for AOS, USCIS issued GC to people from 2006 leaving behind people from 2003, 04 and 05. USCIS should have gradually moved the dates from 2003 to 04 to 05 that way people with older PD would have got it first. With prefiling AOS it will become a lottery like in August 2008 where 2006 PD got GC over 03,04 and 05 in eb2. Safeguards have to be put in place for order of priority date otherwise USCIS will indulge in this lottery mode and excuse there behavior by claiming they did this to save visa wastage.
more...
house heavenly sword wallpaper. wallpaper PSP heavenly sowrd
GCBy3000
11-09 10:16 AM
I did not see the list till now and this link helped me. There is no offense in putting this link here to show others who are not aware of.
Jimmi smarty.
tell us something new. it is all available in CNN or anywhere, everybody knows That.
Go back to sleep now.
Jimmi smarty.
tell us something new. it is all available in CNN or anywhere, everybody knows That.
Go back to sleep now.
tattoo Heavenly Sword
kkt_tkk
05-27 11:57 AM
Hi,
Contribution $200 for my cause, go IV..........
Transaction ID: 69110882PW558882D
Contribution $200 for my cause, go IV..........
Transaction ID: 69110882PW558882D
more...
pictures heavenly sword wallpaper.
wanna_immigrate
05-19 02:56 PM
done ... and received response as well
dresses wallpaper heavenly sword 06
ArunAntonio
12-01 07:24 PM
I support Hunger strike.... We should do a Relay Hunger Strike for may be 3 days ... I am sure we will get volunteers and will create some media attention as well.
more...
makeup Games wallpaper heavenly sword
asdcrajnet
07-05 07:51 AM
Just talked to a USCIS customer representative
my application is still not in the system. My application reached USCIS in June 27th. I told her that it reached on June 21st....I think I could give it a try on July 12th...
She also said I will get a response(Receipt Notice or the application sent back) in 4 weeks time.
my application is still not in the system. My application reached USCIS in June 27th. I told her that it reached on June 21st....I think I could give it a try on July 12th...
She also said I will get a response(Receipt Notice or the application sent back) in 4 weeks time.
girlfriend wallpaper heavenly sword 03
NolaIndian32
10-27 02:04 PM
Just a hypothetical scenario.
Say an applicant is having PD of March 2005.
His/Her 485 gets approved with PD of Jan 2005. (may be a typo by CIS data entry person)
However at the time of approval, PD is current till June 2005. (he or she should have been approved anyway).
What would be the scenario? Thoughts? Any one????
In the scenario presented above, or where USCIS erroneously issued a GC when PD is not current, the obligation on the GC applicant's part is to report the error for appropriate resolution by USCIS. Even if the GC applicant (like my best friend who got his GC in 2008) is not aware of the detailed process, and is not tracking RD, PD, ND, the applicant still has an attorney who is representing the applicant. Also, filing the I-485, doesn't automatically guarantee the issuance of a GC (eg of withdrawing $100, expecting to get $100 but getting more than that amount - comparison is not apples to apples when talking about expecting GC after you file I-485).
In the end, when these situations occur it boils down to doing what is ethically and legally appropriate, within an appropriate response time frame.
-Nola
Say an applicant is having PD of March 2005.
His/Her 485 gets approved with PD of Jan 2005. (may be a typo by CIS data entry person)
However at the time of approval, PD is current till June 2005. (he or she should have been approved anyway).
What would be the scenario? Thoughts? Any one????
In the scenario presented above, or where USCIS erroneously issued a GC when PD is not current, the obligation on the GC applicant's part is to report the error for appropriate resolution by USCIS. Even if the GC applicant (like my best friend who got his GC in 2008) is not aware of the detailed process, and is not tracking RD, PD, ND, the applicant still has an attorney who is representing the applicant. Also, filing the I-485, doesn't automatically guarantee the issuance of a GC (eg of withdrawing $100, expecting to get $100 but getting more than that amount - comparison is not apples to apples when talking about expecting GC after you file I-485).
In the end, when these situations occur it boils down to doing what is ethically and legally appropriate, within an appropriate response time frame.
-Nola
hairstyles Kai - Heavenly Sword by
dummgelauft
08-09 03:27 PM
GO_GUY,
How much finance is required to do MBA in canada say in top 50 universities. Can we get financial aid for international students?
Canada does not have 50 universities, in TOTAL. So your choice is limited to
(1) Queens University in Kingston, Ont.
(2) University of Toronto
(3) UBC
How much finance is required to do MBA in canada say in top 50 universities. Can we get financial aid for international students?
Canada does not have 50 universities, in TOTAL. So your choice is limited to
(1) Queens University in Kingston, Ont.
(2) University of Toronto
(3) UBC
ramaonline
05-28 07:25 PM
Can someone from the core group contact Attorney Murthy for a donation? I remember she had contributed 5000 USD for the last event.
sanju
04-10 08:30 AM
Is this the language 2 civilized people use to discuss or debate. When 2 people debate, both believe other is not right - thats why its called discussion or debate. Doesn't mean we need to use extreme or bad words.
oh ya, so the police for political correctness is out. Gosh, I am toast.
Take it easy. buddysinsfo and I have a history. We go way back together. He is my friend, don't you know. oh and BTW, he is a forum terrorist because he use different ids posing as north indian to attack people from Andra, just to create unrest on the forum. During mumbai attack he was repeatedly sympathising with the terrorist. I don't owe you any explanation, and get a life to deal with tough language instead of trying to act like a moral police of political correctness. What's wrong with my language? Others here use way to harsh language. What's up with that?
.
oh ya, so the police for political correctness is out. Gosh, I am toast.
Take it easy. buddysinsfo and I have a history. We go way back together. He is my friend, don't you know. oh and BTW, he is a forum terrorist because he use different ids posing as north indian to attack people from Andra, just to create unrest on the forum. During mumbai attack he was repeatedly sympathising with the terrorist. I don't owe you any explanation, and get a life to deal with tough language instead of trying to act like a moral police of political correctness. What's wrong with my language? Others here use way to harsh language. What's up with that?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment