View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2016, 11:29 AM
d.kiran d.kiran is offline
Member
Priority Date
:
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 30
d.kiran is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashwink View Post
Admin should feel free to correct me, but I think there are many issues IV raised that tie together:
  1. Completely ignoring employee's interests in interpreting the law.
  2. The fact that on a literal interpretation of the law governing labor certification, the labor certification is completely invalid for any kind of backlog. This means if DHS is interpreting the law literally, then EB-3 ROW (which is backlogged by 2 months) has an invalid labor certification - but they are still giving them green cards!
  3. If DHS is keeping the labor certification valid - how are are they doing it? IV is saying (and I agree) that the only way to do it is by interpreting the statue through AC-21, which if they are doing then why are they not providing job flexibility? This selective interpretation of the law goes back to #1 which is DHS is completely ignoring employee interests.
  4. Regarding 6th year extensions, IV is saying the only reason Congress allows 6th year extensions is to enable the backlogged applicants to get a GC. But if you switch employers, you loose the GC application and have to start all over again - which goes against the whole reason for a 6th year H1-B extension and is a paradox.

As to your specific question, it is very unlikely that they will do that. They will get sued because that is not what Congress intended with the 6th year H1-B extension. If they did that, they cannot give any GC to EB-3 ROW. I think IV has done a brilliant job in cornering DHS with contradictions in they own regulation.

There are many other things in the document. It is a very technical document - that has been made easy to read - I suggest reading it 3 or 4 times to let the whole thing sink in.
Thank you.. That is the context I was looking for. I agree it needs multiple readings, but reading it with additional context helps me :-)
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote