_TrueFacts
09-04 11:05 AM
IV admins, Chandu,
Please delete this thread or move this away from the main page.
This thread is a good fodder for antis.
Deleting this thread does not change the facts nor does IMV will gain anything out of it. The reason we even discuss these things here other than immigration is because we have immigrated and we have a common bonding.
Please delete this thread or move this away from the main page.
This thread is a good fodder for antis.
Deleting this thread does not change the facts nor does IMV will gain anything out of it. The reason we even discuss these things here other than immigration is because we have immigrated and we have a common bonding.
wallpaper charlie sheen house sale. 2011 Charlie Sheen was sent by charlie sheen house
txgcfiler
09-03 09:30 AM
May soul rest in peace!
unitednations
02-13 09:07 PM
I am following this discussion and it is interesting. Here is what I get so far.
USCIS is not allotting excess visa number horizontally. Unused visas from Eb1 and EB2 are not going to over subscribed countries but to EB3 ROW. The "total" visas in the law can be read as total visa across all categories. If this is true then it is likely that untill EB3 ROW becomes current, India and China will only get 7%. But here is what I do not get.
1) From november 2005 bulletin, USCIS is saying that they are going to suspend AC21. Why did they decide to suspend ac21? Can they decide on their own when they are going to apply to AC21 and when they are not? Is AC21 not a law?
2) Why or how did USCIS allocate large number of visas to over subscribed countries India and China before? Like in the November bulletin, USCIS says india used up around 44000 visas. Were they allocating more visas by following AC21? If yes, then why did they decide to suspend AC21? If no, then how they allocated so many numbers?
I am trying to understand the how the USCIS decides to allocate visa numbers. And it is very complex.
No; it is not in their discretion to suspend anything.
Before concurrent filing came around (2002); it was pretty easy to calculate dates because the 140's had to be approved. from here they could get good estimates.
However; they weren't ready for concurrent filing and 140's sat for almost one to two years to get approved. It looks like at this time; the visa dates started to get screwed up. Essentially, ac21 law says at anytime there is more demand then supply of visas in any quarter then 7% limit will apply. If you think about this; when would a situation ever exist where there wouldn't be more then 35,000 applications in any quarter?
back in 2003 in one of thos aila liaision minutes; uscis had said that approving 485's for EB people wasn't a priority and they just sat there. Hardly any EB cases got approved back then.
In April 2005 there was over 35,000 EB approvals mainly due to ombudsmen slamming them for not approving the cases. It looks like when all these cases got approved; someone at uscis/dos realized there was a big problem in their handling of visa dates and that there were too many applicants for visas and established dates and then in October 2006 they went strictly by more demand then visas available in a quarter then no ac21 and retrogression.
That's why I say there are also many people walking around with 485's who perhaps shouldn't be; because dos/uscis didn't do it properly in the last few years.
Also, due to the long time it was taking to get labors approved in heavy immigrant states (california, texas, georiga, new jersey, new york, virigina) many people from ROW in these states weren't able to get labors approved. However, many enterprising companies decided they were going to open branch offices in fast processing states (maine, new hampshire, south dakota, wisconsin) and get the labors approved very fast. This is why there is people with 2004 priority dates in eb3 with 485's pending but people in the slow states couldn't file. Now; there is a big convergence of all of this together. We all just happen to have gotten caught in a unique period of time in immigration (245i's; labor backlogs; concurrent filing; expansion of h-1b's, etc.).
USCIS is not allotting excess visa number horizontally. Unused visas from Eb1 and EB2 are not going to over subscribed countries but to EB3 ROW. The "total" visas in the law can be read as total visa across all categories. If this is true then it is likely that untill EB3 ROW becomes current, India and China will only get 7%. But here is what I do not get.
1) From november 2005 bulletin, USCIS is saying that they are going to suspend AC21. Why did they decide to suspend ac21? Can they decide on their own when they are going to apply to AC21 and when they are not? Is AC21 not a law?
2) Why or how did USCIS allocate large number of visas to over subscribed countries India and China before? Like in the November bulletin, USCIS says india used up around 44000 visas. Were they allocating more visas by following AC21? If yes, then why did they decide to suspend AC21? If no, then how they allocated so many numbers?
I am trying to understand the how the USCIS decides to allocate visa numbers. And it is very complex.
No; it is not in their discretion to suspend anything.
Before concurrent filing came around (2002); it was pretty easy to calculate dates because the 140's had to be approved. from here they could get good estimates.
However; they weren't ready for concurrent filing and 140's sat for almost one to two years to get approved. It looks like at this time; the visa dates started to get screwed up. Essentially, ac21 law says at anytime there is more demand then supply of visas in any quarter then 7% limit will apply. If you think about this; when would a situation ever exist where there wouldn't be more then 35,000 applications in any quarter?
back in 2003 in one of thos aila liaision minutes; uscis had said that approving 485's for EB people wasn't a priority and they just sat there. Hardly any EB cases got approved back then.
In April 2005 there was over 35,000 EB approvals mainly due to ombudsmen slamming them for not approving the cases. It looks like when all these cases got approved; someone at uscis/dos realized there was a big problem in their handling of visa dates and that there were too many applicants for visas and established dates and then in October 2006 they went strictly by more demand then visas available in a quarter then no ac21 and retrogression.
That's why I say there are also many people walking around with 485's who perhaps shouldn't be; because dos/uscis didn't do it properly in the last few years.
Also, due to the long time it was taking to get labors approved in heavy immigrant states (california, texas, georiga, new jersey, new york, virigina) many people from ROW in these states weren't able to get labors approved. However, many enterprising companies decided they were going to open branch offices in fast processing states (maine, new hampshire, south dakota, wisconsin) and get the labors approved very fast. This is why there is people with 2004 priority dates in eb3 with 485's pending but people in the slow states couldn't file. Now; there is a big convergence of all of this together. We all just happen to have gotten caught in a unique period of time in immigration (245i's; labor backlogs; concurrent filing; expansion of h-1b's, etc.).
2011 Charlie Sheen. Rate It:
poorslumdog
05-03 01:23 AM
:D:D:D
This reminds me a hilarious movie Burn After Reading!
I am almost rolling on the floor here...
Should I say who supports Prabhakaran here are LTTE or LTTE sponsored ? I don't think so:D:D
You are the only one talking about LTTE or prabaharan. No one cares. Others are talking about civilian..do u know the meaning for that.
This reminds me a hilarious movie Burn After Reading!
I am almost rolling on the floor here...
Should I say who supports Prabhakaran here are LTTE or LTTE sponsored ? I don't think so:D:D
You are the only one talking about LTTE or prabaharan. No one cares. Others are talking about civilian..do u know the meaning for that.
more...
mundada
07-22 10:24 AM
I received yesterday EAD renewal. Even though my priority date is not current, and the EAD was approved on 7/16, the EAD is valid for one year only. I talked to lawyer and she said giving 2 year EAD is at the USCIS' discretion. I am not sure what to read from this. Whether EB2 India would be current within a year or USCIS wants to make more money if renewals are charged. I am not sure whether I would be charged for renewal next year though.
Hope for the best!
Hope for the best!
Marphad
05-18 02:54 PM
Marphad, i didn't say that it's wrong or right, you implied he is anti immigrant, spreading rumors and writing un-necessary posts, i just failed to see how you concluded all that just by looking at his profile ? And point taken after you replied.
And isn't the content in his profile all default content (correct me if i'm wrong) when the tracker was introduced, even i had a changeability as US. And i'm not trying to defend him, but you seem to assume it's fake. And the way i see it, it is incomplete.
If one has a fake profile do you really think he will make it so obvious ? it would resemble more accurate data than the most obvious.
And i do know the profile carries on to a on-related immi thread, no doubts there, except it only makes sense looking and analyzing it when related to an immi issue, unless you are looking for something else.
I didn't say it is fake in my first post. I just pointed out that guy that profile has some wrong content that may impact his credibility. His answer was rude and made me upset.
No hard feelings for anyone buddy, we are all going through more or less the same pain.
And isn't the content in his profile all default content (correct me if i'm wrong) when the tracker was introduced, even i had a changeability as US. And i'm not trying to defend him, but you seem to assume it's fake. And the way i see it, it is incomplete.
If one has a fake profile do you really think he will make it so obvious ? it would resemble more accurate data than the most obvious.
And i do know the profile carries on to a on-related immi thread, no doubts there, except it only makes sense looking and analyzing it when related to an immi issue, unless you are looking for something else.
I didn't say it is fake in my first post. I just pointed out that guy that profile has some wrong content that may impact his credibility. His answer was rude and made me upset.
No hard feelings for anyone buddy, we are all going through more or less the same pain.
more...
_TrueFacts
09-04 12:49 PM
Just one quick question�?
If you get a chance as politician, Can you say you will not do any corruption? If some try to kill you, if you have power, will you be remain silent �?
Facts:
Hope you got the point here.
Sreedhar,
I agree with your comments.
In India, politics have been used to amass money, wealth and YSR has used his position for killings, land grabbing, scams etc.,
Make money the right way, no one stops any one. Where is the end to corrupt means? Yesterday YSR, today his Son. The biggest problem today India is facing is, people involved in policy making deeply submerged in corruption.
There should not be an excuse on comparison. If today we don�t condemn, tomorrow we will be affected. And being here we have to set an example to other people out there in India, living and working in USA is an experience that can�t be valued on paper.
If you get a chance as politician, Can you say you will not do any corruption? If some try to kill you, if you have power, will you be remain silent �?
Facts:
Hope you got the point here.
Sreedhar,
I agree with your comments.
In India, politics have been used to amass money, wealth and YSR has used his position for killings, land grabbing, scams etc.,
Make money the right way, no one stops any one. Where is the end to corrupt means? Yesterday YSR, today his Son. The biggest problem today India is facing is, people involved in policy making deeply submerged in corruption.
There should not be an excuse on comparison. If today we don�t condemn, tomorrow we will be affected. And being here we have to set an example to other people out there in India, living and working in USA is an experience that can�t be valued on paper.
2010 charlie sheen house sale.
delhiguy
01-05 04:50 PM
Moderators , Pls delete this thread. Why is the thread posted on a immigration forum. :mad:
more...
msp1976
02-16 11:12 AM
This is a link provided by akred....
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
This is required reading for all those who want to understand the attitudes of the anti immigration folks like the numbersUSA et al.....
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/immigr09.htm
This is required reading for all those who want to understand the attitudes of the anti immigration folks like the numbersUSA et al.....
hair Charlie Sheen
va_dude
10-28 03:08 PM
Use the tooltip.
Hover the mouse over the red dot and see the comment pop-up as a tool-tip.
Hover the mouse over the red dot and see the comment pop-up as a tool-tip.
more...
rajesh_kamisetty
07-10 11:17 AM
I need to hear more stories like this to realize I won't be alone when time comes for me to pack up.
Me and my wife really like to live and work in other parts of world and we have even asked my company to send us out of USA. The only reason for me at this point to pursue GC is for my wife be able to work part-time.
Otherwise, I am very content being on H1.
Me and my wife really like to live and work in other parts of world and we have even asked my company to send us out of USA. The only reason for me at this point to pursue GC is for my wife be able to work part-time.
Otherwise, I am very content being on H1.
hot images charlie sheen house
msp1976
02-13 03:07 PM
The 7% is a maximum.
They do not have to go to 7% if they don't want to. However; they can't go over it; if there is more demand then supply.
What about paragraph 5 that I have posted up somewhere ???
Does that allow the 7% limit to be exceeded or not ?
they can't go over it; if there is more demand then supply.
That is why we need more supply.....Once supply is more they can go over 7%...
They do not have to go to 7% if they don't want to. However; they can't go over it; if there is more demand then supply.
What about paragraph 5 that I have posted up somewhere ???
Does that allow the 7% limit to be exceeded or not ?
they can't go over it; if there is more demand then supply.
That is why we need more supply.....Once supply is more they can go over 7%...
more...
house Charlie Sheen
Openarms
12-14 03:06 PM
It has to be fair both ways, why can not they issue employment visa on per country basis. Then there is no argument at all. So that people won't come and stuck in the black hole.
tattoo Charlie Sheen: Will He Really
imh1b
01-13 01:07 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
more...
pictures Charlie Sheen Buys Home For 7
bayarea07
09-24 07:27 PM
Interesting Analysis from Greg Siskind
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
COULD ELECTION YEAR POLITICS HELP RECAPTURE BILL'S CHANCES?
Yesterday, I wrote about a great bill that was introduced by Senator Menendez that would recapture hundreds of thousands of unused green card numbers, ease the strict per country limits that cause long lines for nationals of some countries and also make it easier to get a waiver when someone is subject to an unlawful presence bar.It also changes the definition of an "immediate relative" to include spouses and children of permanent residents, a provision which would be wildly popular in the Hispanic community since it would cut out the multiyear waits typical in the Family 2A category.
And, oh yeah, there's another bill that people are talking about. The E-Verify program (DHS' much discussed electronic employment verification system) expires in November.
E-Verify is the heart of the entire enforcement agenda for the antis and with Congress set to adjourn in the next week or so and with the distinct possibility that this will put off all legislation until next February or so when the new Congress comes in, getting E-Verify extended in the next few days is a huge deal. A five year extension has passed the House already. The Senate has done nothing yet.
So it was with great interest that I read in yesterday's CQ Today print edition that Senator Menendez is blocking the E-Verify reauthorization bill in order to force consideration of the recapture bill. The article describes Republicans as being infuriated and saying that the recapture bill is a nonstarter and demanding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bring up a clean E-Verify extension bill.
On the House side, interestingly, the recapture bill was set for a markup in the Judiciary Committee yesterday and Congressman Conyers abruptly adjourned the hearing after a bill barring horse slaughtering was finished yesterday. According to my sources, several members of the Committee were shocked that the markup on the recapture bill didn't happen even though Conyers is a strong backer of the measure. Strange.
So that has me speculating. Is something cooking with the Democratic leadership and the Obama campaign? I think the Democrats smell blood. They know John McCain is in trouble with Hispanic voters based on recent polling data. He's polling anywhere from 10 to 20 points worse than Bush did in 2004 and the Hispanic vote partially explains why Obama finds himself ahead in places like New Mexico and Colorado, states Bush won in 2004. Erosion of support in the Hispanic community could also cost McCain Florida, a state McCain cannot lose if he has any chance of winning the election.
As I reported earlier this week, the McCain campaign and congressional leaders have been clamping down on the anti-immigrant wing of the party. You didn't really think these folks suddenly decided they no longer care about this issue, did you?
What I don't think is a coincidence is the sudden reemergence of immigration in the presidential debate. Suddenly, Obama is blasting McCain on immigration and looking for more and more forums to make his claim that he's pro-immigration and his party's solidly behind him. And he's quick to remind Latinos that John McCain turned his back on them and denounced his own comprehensive immigration reform bill, something that Latino voters are now saying is one their top priorities.
McCain is asking Latino voters for a do-over and claiming that he was only pandering to his base. He was always pro-immigration. It's just politics, you understand.
As you might expect, this message is not selling particularly well. And Democrats know it. They also know that with the economy in free fall, most Americans are not thinking that much about immigration anymore and the issue has dropped back to its historically low rank on issues of concern to the typical voter. So Democrats can be more visibly pro-immigration without having to fear negative consequences.
You probably see where this is going. Provoking a confrontation over immigration with Republicans in the month of October can only have good results. Democrats might actually pass a bill they really want. And they score politically as well.
There's no time to bring up a massive comprehensive immigration reform bill between now and the election. Something smaller and simpler, but what? Oh wait, there's that recapture bill! And there's that must pass E-Verify bill. Now there's a great way to put immigration back on the front pages. Link the two and force Republicans to vote no on a pro-immigration bill likely to have a hugely positive impact in the Hispanic community if they want the E-Verify program to survive. If the Democrats can keep the two bills linked, Republicans who can't stomach more immigration will have to vote no on E-Verify, something they'll have trouble explaining to their constituents. And Republicans who think E-Verify is too important to die, will help deliver a win on the recapture bill.
And in the mean time, McCain will have to openly confront the angry antis in his party. Some of the hardliners in his party will call the provisions easing the unlawful presence waivers to be a "back door amnesty." If McCain goes against them, he'll be seen as a liar by the people in his party who he promised that he would not support an "amnesty" without enforcement first. And if he votes with the antis, it will be all the Hispanic community needs to hear to confirm they're right to support Obama.
October could be interesting.
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
COULD ELECTION YEAR POLITICS HELP RECAPTURE BILL'S CHANCES?
Yesterday, I wrote about a great bill that was introduced by Senator Menendez that would recapture hundreds of thousands of unused green card numbers, ease the strict per country limits that cause long lines for nationals of some countries and also make it easier to get a waiver when someone is subject to an unlawful presence bar.It also changes the definition of an "immediate relative" to include spouses and children of permanent residents, a provision which would be wildly popular in the Hispanic community since it would cut out the multiyear waits typical in the Family 2A category.
And, oh yeah, there's another bill that people are talking about. The E-Verify program (DHS' much discussed electronic employment verification system) expires in November.
E-Verify is the heart of the entire enforcement agenda for the antis and with Congress set to adjourn in the next week or so and with the distinct possibility that this will put off all legislation until next February or so when the new Congress comes in, getting E-Verify extended in the next few days is a huge deal. A five year extension has passed the House already. The Senate has done nothing yet.
So it was with great interest that I read in yesterday's CQ Today print edition that Senator Menendez is blocking the E-Verify reauthorization bill in order to force consideration of the recapture bill. The article describes Republicans as being infuriated and saying that the recapture bill is a nonstarter and demanding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bring up a clean E-Verify extension bill.
On the House side, interestingly, the recapture bill was set for a markup in the Judiciary Committee yesterday and Congressman Conyers abruptly adjourned the hearing after a bill barring horse slaughtering was finished yesterday. According to my sources, several members of the Committee were shocked that the markup on the recapture bill didn't happen even though Conyers is a strong backer of the measure. Strange.
So that has me speculating. Is something cooking with the Democratic leadership and the Obama campaign? I think the Democrats smell blood. They know John McCain is in trouble with Hispanic voters based on recent polling data. He's polling anywhere from 10 to 20 points worse than Bush did in 2004 and the Hispanic vote partially explains why Obama finds himself ahead in places like New Mexico and Colorado, states Bush won in 2004. Erosion of support in the Hispanic community could also cost McCain Florida, a state McCain cannot lose if he has any chance of winning the election.
As I reported earlier this week, the McCain campaign and congressional leaders have been clamping down on the anti-immigrant wing of the party. You didn't really think these folks suddenly decided they no longer care about this issue, did you?
What I don't think is a coincidence is the sudden reemergence of immigration in the presidential debate. Suddenly, Obama is blasting McCain on immigration and looking for more and more forums to make his claim that he's pro-immigration and his party's solidly behind him. And he's quick to remind Latinos that John McCain turned his back on them and denounced his own comprehensive immigration reform bill, something that Latino voters are now saying is one their top priorities.
McCain is asking Latino voters for a do-over and claiming that he was only pandering to his base. He was always pro-immigration. It's just politics, you understand.
As you might expect, this message is not selling particularly well. And Democrats know it. They also know that with the economy in free fall, most Americans are not thinking that much about immigration anymore and the issue has dropped back to its historically low rank on issues of concern to the typical voter. So Democrats can be more visibly pro-immigration without having to fear negative consequences.
You probably see where this is going. Provoking a confrontation over immigration with Republicans in the month of October can only have good results. Democrats might actually pass a bill they really want. And they score politically as well.
There's no time to bring up a massive comprehensive immigration reform bill between now and the election. Something smaller and simpler, but what? Oh wait, there's that recapture bill! And there's that must pass E-Verify bill. Now there's a great way to put immigration back on the front pages. Link the two and force Republicans to vote no on a pro-immigration bill likely to have a hugely positive impact in the Hispanic community if they want the E-Verify program to survive. If the Democrats can keep the two bills linked, Republicans who can't stomach more immigration will have to vote no on E-Verify, something they'll have trouble explaining to their constituents. And Republicans who think E-Verify is too important to die, will help deliver a win on the recapture bill.
And in the mean time, McCain will have to openly confront the angry antis in his party. Some of the hardliners in his party will call the provisions easing the unlawful presence waivers to be a "back door amnesty." If McCain goes against them, he'll be seen as a liar by the people in his party who he promised that he would not support an "amnesty" without enforcement first. And if he votes with the antis, it will be all the Hispanic community needs to hear to confirm they're right to support Obama.
October could be interesting.
dresses Charlie Sheen set to buy
masterji
09-24 12:37 AM
By Septemebre 2010, EB3-india wll be in the mid of 2002.
Do you think EB-2 India will cross 2005 by Sept. 2010? Thanks.
Do you think EB-2 India will cross 2005 by Sept. 2010? Thanks.
more...
makeup Charlie Sheen Thankfully Pulls
lazycis
02-15 04:08 PM
I read the end and it was unfortunate. I was talking about visa number reservation where they can reserve visa numbers for us in the future years based on the previous mistake they did. The court can compel USCIS to give visa numbers but maybe not in the same year but in a period of several years where there can put the newly applied i-485's on hold.
Here is the story. DV immigrant is eligible to receive visa until fiscal year end. After the fiscal year ended, a DV immigrant is no longer eligible to receive visa.
8 USC 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)
(II) Aliens who qualify, through random selection, for a visa under section 1153 (c) of this title shall remain eligible to receive such visa only through the end of the specific fiscal year for which they were selected.
The story is different for EB immigrants. Their eligibility does not expire. That's why it's possibile to recapture numbers from the previous years.
Here is the story. DV immigrant is eligible to receive visa until fiscal year end. After the fiscal year ended, a DV immigrant is no longer eligible to receive visa.
8 USC 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)
(II) Aliens who qualify, through random selection, for a visa under section 1153 (c) of this title shall remain eligible to receive such visa only through the end of the specific fiscal year for which they were selected.
The story is different for EB immigrants. Their eligibility does not expire. That's why it's possibile to recapture numbers from the previous years.
girlfriend pictures Click here for home listings charlie sheen house sale.
vdlrao
07-16 05:11 PM
How many of you think theres a Possibility of Current for EB2 India in either of the Jul/Aug/Sep 2009 bulletins, just like a more than 2 years jump in Aug 2008 bulletin.
hairstyles charlie sheen house sale.
lskreddy
04-23 03:24 PM
Unless the requirements said Bachelors plus five years experience will be accepted in lieu of Masters, the labor substitution is a risk. The people who go through these files go by rules and I think they are advised not to use any logical reasoning. It certainly would be risky to go for substitution unless you can produce what is needed.
Experience certificates are probably scrutinized in a less stringent way but education is a no-brainer and they might not approve. Ofcourse, I am not a lawyer, spend a couple of hundred with reputed lawyers. This might save a lot of grief later.
BTW, what does the employer's lawyer say? Don't they have one.
Experience certificates are probably scrutinized in a less stringent way but education is a no-brainer and they might not approve. Ofcourse, I am not a lawyer, spend a couple of hundred with reputed lawyers. This might save a lot of grief later.
BTW, what does the employer's lawyer say? Don't they have one.
lazycis
12-13 01:07 PM
Here is what the Supreme Court said:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/426/67/case.html
"The fact that all persons, aliens and citizens alike, are protected by the Due Process Clause does not lead to the further conclusion that all aliens are entitled to enjoy all the advantages of citizenship or, indeed, to the conclusion that all aliens must be placed in a single homogeneous legal classification. For a host of constitutional and statutory provisions rest on the premise that a legitimate distinction between citizens and aliens may justify attributes and benefits for one class not accorded to the other; and the class of aliens is itself a heterogeneous multitude of persons with a wide-ranging variety of ties to this country.
In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. The exclusion of aliens and the reservation of the power to deport have no permissible counterpart in the Federal Government's power to regulate the conduct of its own citizenry. The fact that an Act of Congress treats aliens differently from citizens does not in itself imply that such disparate treatment is "invidious."
...
The real question presented by this case is not whether discrimination between citizens and aliens is permissible; rather, it is whether the statutory discrimination within the class of aliens - allowing benefits to some aliens but not to others - is permissible."
The SC concluded that the statutory discrimination within the class of aliens is permissible.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/426/67/case.html
"The fact that all persons, aliens and citizens alike, are protected by the Due Process Clause does not lead to the further conclusion that all aliens are entitled to enjoy all the advantages of citizenship or, indeed, to the conclusion that all aliens must be placed in a single homogeneous legal classification. For a host of constitutional and statutory provisions rest on the premise that a legitimate distinction between citizens and aliens may justify attributes and benefits for one class not accorded to the other; and the class of aliens is itself a heterogeneous multitude of persons with a wide-ranging variety of ties to this country.
In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. The exclusion of aliens and the reservation of the power to deport have no permissible counterpart in the Federal Government's power to regulate the conduct of its own citizenry. The fact that an Act of Congress treats aliens differently from citizens does not in itself imply that such disparate treatment is "invidious."
...
The real question presented by this case is not whether discrimination between citizens and aliens is permissible; rather, it is whether the statutory discrimination within the class of aliens - allowing benefits to some aliens but not to others - is permissible."
The SC concluded that the statutory discrimination within the class of aliens is permissible.
CADude
04-18 02:49 PM
immigration-law.com
04/18/2007: Further Clarification on Pending I-140 Substitution Petitions and Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
There are a couple of clarifications we want to make on our previous posting on this issue. The supplemental information part of a regulation is not binding, but when there is a room for interpretation on specific provisions of the rule itself, it gives a guidance to the interpretation. In this regards, for now, the correction to our previous interpretation should stand. Secondly, there is no information available about this issue in the final regulation which is expected to be released sooner or later. Whatever the final version will look, it may be prudent for the employers with the certified labor certification applications to file the substitution I-140 petitions as soon as possible before the final rule is released.
04/18/2007: Clarification and Correction of Scope of Validity of Substitution of Approved Labor Certifications Under the Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
The final rule to eliminate the substitution is expected to be released in the near future. One question that raises the body heat has been the pending I-140 substitution petitions which have yet to be approved. Under the proposed regulation, there was a provision that the substitution approved at the time of enactment of the final rule will not be affected by the elimination rule. We previously interpreted the language "substitution approved" would include the approved I-140 substitution petitions and would not include the pending I-140 substitution petitions.
We want to correct such interpretation. The substitution approved under the proposed rule appears to mean the substitution approved by the DOL and not necessarily the I-140 substitution approval. Accordingly, if the I-140 has been filed and is pending at the time enactment of the final rule, such case should not be affected by the elimination rule and remain valid. This is made clear by the following supplemental information to the proposed regulaation:
Substitution of alien beneficiaries will be prohibited as of the effective date of a final rule resulting from this NPRM and that prohibition will apply to all pending permanent labor certification applications and to approved certifications not yet filed with DHS, whether the application was filed under the prior or current regulation. This regulatory change would not affect substitutions approved prior to the final rule's effective date.
We stand corrected on this change.
04/18/2007: Further Clarification on Pending I-140 Substitution Petitions and Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
There are a couple of clarifications we want to make on our previous posting on this issue. The supplemental information part of a regulation is not binding, but when there is a room for interpretation on specific provisions of the rule itself, it gives a guidance to the interpretation. In this regards, for now, the correction to our previous interpretation should stand. Secondly, there is no information available about this issue in the final regulation which is expected to be released sooner or later. Whatever the final version will look, it may be prudent for the employers with the certified labor certification applications to file the substitution I-140 petitions as soon as possible before the final rule is released.
04/18/2007: Clarification and Correction of Scope of Validity of Substitution of Approved Labor Certifications Under the Proposed Substitution Elimination Rule
The final rule to eliminate the substitution is expected to be released in the near future. One question that raises the body heat has been the pending I-140 substitution petitions which have yet to be approved. Under the proposed regulation, there was a provision that the substitution approved at the time of enactment of the final rule will not be affected by the elimination rule. We previously interpreted the language "substitution approved" would include the approved I-140 substitution petitions and would not include the pending I-140 substitution petitions.
We want to correct such interpretation. The substitution approved under the proposed rule appears to mean the substitution approved by the DOL and not necessarily the I-140 substitution approval. Accordingly, if the I-140 has been filed and is pending at the time enactment of the final rule, such case should not be affected by the elimination rule and remain valid. This is made clear by the following supplemental information to the proposed regulaation:
Substitution of alien beneficiaries will be prohibited as of the effective date of a final rule resulting from this NPRM and that prohibition will apply to all pending permanent labor certification applications and to approved certifications not yet filed with DHS, whether the application was filed under the prior or current regulation. This regulatory change would not affect substitutions approved prior to the final rule's effective date.
We stand corrected on this change.
