![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
IV Agenda and Legislative Updates Immigration Voice's Agenda and Legislative Updates |
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
![]()
As an organization, Immigration Voice also submitted comments applauding the change and provided recommendations for how the proposed modification could be further improved.
Here is the link to our comments to the proposed regulation - Regulations.gov We are hoping for swift implementation of the final regulation. Thanks to everyone who submitted positive comments for proposed modification to regulation concerning allowing work authorization for H-4 visa holders. IV |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
There could be more steps involved but if you are interested to learn more, here is an official document about the rule making process: https://www.federalregister.gov/uplo...ng_process.pdf |
|
||||
![]()
I found this relevant news article, please remove if it's not considered helpful to the discussion:
Obama has big options for green card, H-1B reform without Congress - Computerworld Any specific reason why this "counting of dependents" wasn't included in the recommendations? |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The last thing I want is more comments from stirring the pot using my post. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Based on statements made over two weeks ago by Speaker Boehner and The President, it is possible that there could be another round of immigration related Executive Order in the coming weeks and months. We had sent two different newsletters on this subject within this month: https://www.facebook.com/notes/immig...43435699055990 https://www.facebook.com/notes/immig...50847964981430 We have been working on these fixes for a period of time and we request everyone to get active and follow this debate closely. To make it to work, we may need help to make phone calls and/or write/fax letters on a short notice. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
|
||||
![]()
Can IV propose :
Thanks Quote:
|
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Administrative fix and executive order has limitations to abide by the existing law. Anything not within the existing law will not be considered. Administrative fix or executive order is not a substitute for bill in Congress. We welcome all suggestions and ideas you may have. However, we do request that you do your research and provide legal basis for your suggestions/ideas. Just writing a wish list that has no legal basis within the existing law will not help. Another thing to consider is the political viability of the ask. Asking to count EB dependents in family based category is neither legally possible nor politically viable. |
|
||||
![]()
again thank you for your thankless service.
We know of no explicit authorization for derivative family members to be counted under either the Employment Based preference in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Let us examine what INA § 203(d) says: A spouse of child defined in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of section 1101(b) of this title shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, be entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration provided in the respective subsection, if accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent. There is nothing here that explicitly authorizes or mandates the counting of family members under the preference quotas. While a derivative is “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration” as the principal alien, nothing requires that family members also be given their own numbers. Suppose, for example, that there is only one visa number left in a fiscal year for the EB-2 category and that the last principal beneficiary who gets this number has a spouse and 6 children. What happens to them? Ought they not be accorded “the same status and the same order of consideration?” Should only the principal become an LPR while everyone else waits till next year? What if visa retrogression sets in and the family has to wait, maybe for years? This does not make sense. Is there not sufficient ambiguity in INA § 203(d) to argue that family members should not be counted against the cap? We do not contend that they should be completely exempted from being counted. As stated in INA 203 § (d), family members should be given the “same status and the same order of consideration” as the principal. Hence, if there is no visa number for the principal, the rest of the family does not get in. If, on the other hand, there is a single remaining visa number for the principal, the family members, however many there are, ought to be “entitled to the same status, and the same order of consideration as the principal.” |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Not allowing employers to revoke 140 after AC21 | desi485 | AC21 Portability after 180 days of 485 filing | 20 | 11-12-2008 08:53 PM |
ETA Notice on Modification of H-2B Labor Certification Application Procedures | twinbrothers | Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins | 0 | 07-13-2007 05:30 PM |
LC Substitution Regulation | Lasantha | Retrogression, priority dates and Visa bulletins | 2 | 05-02-2007 03:12 PM |
LinkBack |
![]() |
![]() |