Immigration Voice - Forums
Register Get Involved Contact Lawmakers Advocacy Discussion Image Image Image Image

Go Back   Immigration Voice > Immigration Voice Issues and Congressional updates > IV Agenda and Legislative Updates
Click to log in with Facebook
IV Agenda and Legislative Updates Immigration Voice's Agenda and Legislative Updates

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2014, 06:42 PM
Banned
Priority Date
:
Jan-05
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23
columbusdude007 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shining View Post
. . . Now be revised to filtering facts from friction
cheers!!
Shining
roflmfao!
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #47 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2014, 06:43 PM
Administrator
Priority Date
:
Jun-02
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
08/04/2003
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
10/06/2003
Compare
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 996
Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by columbusdude007 View Post
It is obvious you don't really 'appreciate' my comments. It is not what I think or what Computerworld thinks that matters..it is what, those who matter, think that really matters like for example this:
Quote:
The decision to count dependents against the caps "is an administrative interpretation" of the law, "and anything that's an administrative interpretation can be changed," said former U.S. Rep. Bruce Morrison (D-Conn.), who chaired the House Immigration subcommittee responsible for drafting the 1990 immigration reform legislation that created the present system.
I don't have time to respond to every idiot like you who lives in his shell and is afraid to come out in open. You hide behind his anonymity to attack others.

So you are saying it doesn't matter what you or computerworld thinks but it matters what some guy quoted in the article thinks? Who knows, maybe the person is a lobbyist and maybe he has his agenda to keep everyone thinking that something might happen, maybe folks can profit from people thinking that recapture and exemption can happen, who knows? We don't know the intentions of every person quoted in every article. It is not our job to micro analyze everyone in every article. Get that? How do you want us to comment on the intention of someone else quoted in some article? We don't care for folks who are not relevant. Is this person quoted in the article deciding the policy now? NO. Is she/he the decider? NO. Then why the hell does it matter what she/he thinks and for you to pick a fight with us. If you don't like what we are saying, just pass along. Its not very far, EO will be out close to labor day. You can see at the time who was telling the truth and who all quoted in all the different articles was exaggerating, won't we? So what's the point you are trying to make quoting some irrelevant article?

This will be the last you will hear from us on this argument. We are working on other provisions that we believe will help many million people, immigrants and US citizens. We would rather be working on our agenda than to respond to your irrelevant quotes from some obscure article.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2014, 06:46 PM
Administrator
Priority Date
:
Jun-02
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
08/04/2003
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
10/06/2003
Compare
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 996
Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shining View Post
. . . now be revised to filtering facts from friction

Cheers!!
Shining
If you haven't noticed the title of the thread is -

"Possible Administrative Fixes - Filtering facts from fiction"

Which is why we are sharing what is not possible, and sharing what is possible.

Just because recapture and exemption are unlikely to happen, it doesn't mean other Admin fixes are not possible.

Open your mind, there is a world beyond recapture and exemption. But you will only see it if you are willing to see beyond the obvious.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #49 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2014, 07:00 PM
Banned
Priority Date
:
Jan-05
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23
columbusdude007 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Its not very far, EO will be out close to labor day. You can see at the time who was telling the truth and who all quoted in all the different articles was exaggerating, won't we?
AMEN!

Quote:
This will be the last you will hear from us on this argument. We are working on other provisions that we believe will help many million people, immigrants and US citizens. We would rather be working on our agenda than to respond to your irrelevant quotes from some obscure article.
Wish you all the best!
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #50 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2014, 07:19 PM
Junior Member
Priority Date
:
N/A
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
N/A
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3
gs1968 will become famous soon enough
Default

The following link is to a very well-known article

ILW.COM - immigration news:Why We Canít Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen

Please pay attention to Footnote 8 after scrolling to the bottom of the page

Rep.Morrison is on record saying that there is no basis in the IMMACT 90 to argue that dependents should be exempt.The conference committee fixed the total numbers including dependents.Nothing in the Act has been amended since for him to change his viewpoint

Most of the players then are still alive and could possibly testify to this point if a legal challenge was presented
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2014, 07:38 PM
Banned
Priority Date
:
Jan-05
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23
columbusdude007 is on a distinguished road
Default

Whatever IV Admins or anyone for that matter think or do, it does not influence anything. The only thing that drives Law making and EO is politics. It was politics that made the POTUS to introduce DACA (inspite of repeatedly declaring that it was beyond his powers). That move paid off handsomely and he won a 2nd term. Now just as he was fixing to expand DACA with an eye on the Mid-Terms to help fellow Democrats, the public opinion has reportedly turned against expanding DACA putting at risk 5 Senate Dem Candidates in Red states. They have reportedly requested the POTUS to hold off on any moves that may endanger their chances of winning the seats. So, the think tank in the White House thinks that the POTUS needs to hold off the DACA expansion till after the Elections. But since the POTUS has repeatedly promised to take EA on Immigration, he needs to do something. That something turns out to be EO on Legal Immigration. It kills many birds with a single stone. It basically implements some provisions in HR3012 that was passed by a Bipartisan House but got derailed by the Republicans in the Senate. These same provisions are also contained in the CIR that was passed by a Bipartisan Senate. So, the POTUS and Democrats can claim that the Republicans are obstructionists and Democrats are the ones who are doers!! Oh by the way, enforcement has already been heightened along the border with more of the fence jumpers being apprehended and the deportation proceedings compressed to a 4th of the time. All of these will be played out on TV ads in the next 2 months hoping that Dems can retain the Senate!!
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #52 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2014, 08:15 PM
Administrator
Priority Date
:
Jun-02
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
08/04/2003
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
10/06/2003
Compare
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 996
Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by columbusdude007 View Post
Whatever IV Admins or anyone for that matter think or do, it does not influence anything. The only thing that drives Law making and EO is politics. It was politics that made the POTUS to introduce DACA (inspite of repeatedly declaring that it was beyond his powers). That move paid off handsomely and he won a 2nd term. Now just as he was fixing to expand DACA with an eye on the Mid-Terms to help fellow Democrats, the public opinion has reportedly turned against expanding DACA putting at risk 5 Senate Dem Candidates in Red states. They have reportedly requested the POTUS to hold off on any moves that may endanger their chances of winning the seats. So, the think tank in the White House thinks that the POTUS needs to hold off the DACA expansion till after the Elections. But since the POTUS has repeatedly promised to take EA on Immigration, he needs to do something. That something turns out to be EO on Legal Immigration. It kills many birds with a single stone. It basically implements some provisions in HR3012 that was passed by a Bipartisan House but got derailed by the Republicans in the Senate. These same provisions are also contained in the CIR that was passed by a Bipartisan Senate. So, the POTUS and Democrats can claim that the Republicans are obstructionists and Democrats are the ones who are doers!! Oh by the way, enforcement has already been heightened along the border with more of the fence jumpers being apprehended and the deportation proceedings compressed to a 4th of the time. All of these will be played out on TV ads in the next 2 months hoping that Dems can retain the Senate!!

Obviously you are knowledgeable about what is going to happen. Thanks for sharing that perspective, we appreciate that
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #53 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2014, 10:41 PM
Member
Priority Date
:
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 42
shining has much to be proud of shining has much to be proud of shining has much to be proud of shining has much to be proud of shining has much to be proud of shining has much to be proud of shining has much to be proud of shining has much to be proud of shining has much to be proud of shining has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968 View Post
The following link is to a very well-known article

ILW.COM - immigration news:Why We Canít Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen

Please pay attention to Footnote 8 after scrolling to the bottom of the page

Rep.Morrison is on record saying that there is no basis in the IMMACT 90 to argue that dependents should be exempt.The conference committee fixed the total numbers including dependents.Nothing in the Act has been amended since for him to change his viewpoint

Most of the players then are still alive and could possibly testify to this point if a legal challenge was presented

Thanks for sharing the article --very insightful and covers the spectrum of both family and employment based.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #54 (permalink)  
Old 08-24-2014, 09:25 AM
Banned
Priority Date
:
Jan-05
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23
columbusdude007 is on a distinguished road
Default This is subject to interpretation..the Law is not specific

Quote:
Originally Posted by gs1968 View Post
The following link is to a very well-known article

ILW.COM - immigration news:Why We Canít Wait: How President Obama Can Erase Immigrant Visa Backlogs with the Stroke of A Pen

Please pay attention to Footnote 8 after scrolling to the bottom of the page

Rep.Morrison is on record saying that there is no basis in the IMMACT 90 to argue that dependents should be exempt.The conference committee fixed the total numbers including dependents.Nothing in the Act has been amended since for him to change his viewpoint

Most of the players then are still alive and could possibly testify to this point if a legal challenge was presented
Those are all good talking points in a Court. But they have not been specified in the Act. That is the reason the very same Morrison is now singing a different tune!
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #55 (permalink)  
Old 08-24-2014, 02:45 PM
Administrator
Priority Date
:
Jun-02
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
08/04/2003
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
10/06/2003
Compare
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 996
Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by columbusdude007 View Post
Those are all good talking points in a Court. But they have not been specified in the Act. That is the reason the very same Morrison is now singing a different tune!
You are something. You just like to argue and pick a fight with others , don't you?

Someone messaged saying that you were trashing us on other websites. We don't care what you do else where but what is the point of this argument? Did we not agree that we will all know when the EO will be announced?

There is so much legal precedence, law and events, foot notes, floor speeches from sponsors about the interpretation of the law when it was being created, and together it provides significant legal challenges for the Administration to do recapture or dependents exemption. This is what the decision makers have said. Any one can disagree with what they think but what matters is what the Administration thinks.

What is IV saying?
IV is telling the truth about what is going on behind the scene.

What is the understanding of some misguided people?
When IV is sharing what decision makers are telling about serious legal challenges for doing exemption or recapture, misguided people who have trouble understanding English, these people seem to understand as if IV is against exemption or recapture, which is totally false.

Recapture
There is a precedence for recapture by Congress under AC21 law. So Congress has retained the authority to recapture unused green cards and the AC21 change in law recaptured green cards one time and it did not say automatic recapture for any unused green cards going forward. 140K green number is a cap (or ceiling). Law DOES NOT say that USCIS must allocate annual quota of 140K visa. Rather the law says that 140K is a cap (meaning USCIS can allocate any number of visas less that 140K, which could be even zero green cards).

Exempting dependents
During the Senate IMMACT debates (in 1989) Senator Specter expressed the understanding that spouses will continue to be counted in his remarks in support of an amendment increasing the employment-based immigrant visa cap by 30,000 are below:

Quote:
“Mr. President, the experience has demonstrated that there is a significant demand for more business visas. More than half of the current 54,000 business visas are used for family dependents. I do not quarrel with that allocation. But the result is that less than 25,000 visas actually go to the workers.”
Source: 135 Cong. Rec. S7858-02 (July 10, 1989)

Senator Specter then introduced into the record a letter from the Chamber of Commerce supporting the amendment to increase employment-based immigrant visa cap. Interestingly, the letter highlights the fact that dependents will continue to count against the employment-based cap as evidence of the diminished impact of the increase on the U.S. labor market:

Quote:
“The Specter/DeConcini amendment will propose only a very modest increase (30,000 visas) in the employer-sponsored immigration categories. It may be expected that approximately half the increase will be used by family members of principal employee-immigrants. Thus, the amendment will permit only an additional 15,000-20,000 employer-sponsored immigrants. This small number, together with the fact that these immigrants cannot be sponsored unless the Department of Labor has certified that their skills are not available in the U.S., guarantees that there will be no significant adverse impact on the U.S. labor market. In fact, the labor market impact will be positive because these needed skills enhance productivity and create employment.”
Source: 135 Cong. Rec. S7858-02 (July 10, 1989).

This if from Congressional record which is set in stone and cannot be changed.

This is just one part. Over the years, there have been hundreds of such references and some of the bills considered in Congress have tried to pass dependents exemption from numerical count, meaning that the current law and the original intent of the Congress did not include exemption from dependents.

So it is not true that Congressional intent was not to count dependents in EB, or, if there is any ambiguity around counting dependents. Moreover, the law, section 1255(b) seals the fate of this suggestion without a doubt.

You can continue to be one of those guys who think immigration lawyers are Gods and whatever they say is the only truth. Your choice. Our observation is some lawyers say/make outrageous claims online, just so they are popular and quoted in different places, obviously being popular leads to more business for them. Which is why we started this thread to help people to filter out fact from fiction because there is so much misinformation out there. If you don't like what we are sharing, to get kick out of argument you can go to some lawyer website who agrees with you. There is absolutely no need for you to argue or hang around here.

You are Welcome!

Last edited by Administrator2; 08-24-2014 at 02:50 PM.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


2 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 08-24-2014, 09:41 PM
Banned
Priority Date
:
Jan-05
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23
columbusdude007 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Administrator2 View Post
You are something. You just like to argue and pick a fight with others , don't you?

Someone messaged saying that you were trashing us on other websites. We don't care what you do else where but what is the point of this argument? Did we not agree that we will all know when the EO will be announced?

There is so much legal precedence, law and events, foot notes, floor speeches from sponsors about the interpretation of the law when it was being created, and together it provides significant legal challenges for the Administration to do recapture or dependents exemption. This is what the decision makers have said. Any one can disagree with what they think but what matters is what the Administration thinks.

What is IV saying?
IV is telling the truth about what is going on behind the scene.

What is the understanding of some misguided people?
When IV is sharing what decision makers are telling about serious legal challenges for doing exemption or recapture, misguided people who have trouble understanding English, these people seem to understand as if IV is against exemption or recapture, which is totally false.

Recapture
There is a precedence for recapture by Congress under AC21 law. So Congress has retained the authority to recapture unused green cards and the AC21 change in law recaptured green cards one time and it did not say automatic recapture for any unused green cards going forward. 140K green number is a cap (or ceiling). Law DOES NOT say that USCIS must allocate annual quota of 140K visa. Rather the law says that 140K is a cap (meaning USCIS can allocate any number of visas less that 140K, which could be even zero green cards).

Exempting dependents
During the Senate IMMACT debates (in 1989) Senator Specter expressed the understanding that spouses will continue to be counted in his remarks in support of an amendment increasing the employment-based immigrant visa cap by 30,000 are below:



Source: 135 Cong. Rec. S7858-02 (July 10, 1989)

Senator Specter then introduced into the record a letter from the Chamber of Commerce supporting the amendment to increase employment-based immigrant visa cap. Interestingly, the letter highlights the fact that dependents will continue to count against the employment-based cap as evidence of the diminished impact of the increase on the U.S. labor market:



Source: 135 Cong. Rec. S7858-02 (July 10, 1989).

This if from Congressional record which is set in stone and cannot be changed.

This is just one part. Over the years, there have been hundreds of such references and some of the bills considered in Congress have tried to pass dependents exemption from numerical count, meaning that the current law and the original intent of the Congress did not include exemption from dependents.

So it is not true that Congressional intent was not to count dependents in EB, or, if there is any ambiguity around counting dependents. Moreover, the law, section 1255(b) seals the fate of this suggestion without a doubt.

You can continue to be one of those guys who think immigration lawyers are Gods and whatever they say is the only truth. Your choice. Our observation is some lawyers say/make outrageous claims online, just so they are popular and quoted in different places, obviously being popular leads to more business for them. Which is why we started this thread to help people to filter out fact from fiction because there is so much misinformation out there. If you don't like what we are sharing, to get kick out of argument you can go to some lawyer website who agrees with you. There is absolutely no need for you to argue or hang around here.

You are Welcome!
No one can resist an idea whose time has come!
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #57 (permalink)  
Old 08-24-2014, 09:59 PM
Administrator
Priority Date
:
Jun-02
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
08/04/2003
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-140+I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
10/06/2003
Compare
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 996
Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute Administrator2 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by columbusdude007 View Post
No one can resist an idea whose time has come!
You are amazing. So your response is quoting some adage to imply that Administration wants to do recapture and exemption of dependents, but somehow IV is resisting it. I think we've seen many different type of people on these forums but never came across an idiot such as you.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 08-24-2014, 10:25 PM
Banned
Priority Date
:
Jan-05
Category
:
EB3
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
India
Processing Stage
:
I-485
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23
columbusdude007 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Administrator2 View Post
You are amazing. So your response is quoting some adage to imply that Administration wants to do recapture and exemption of dependents, but somehow IV is resisting it. I think we've seen many different type of people on these forums but never came across an idiot such as you.
No. Not both. Just the exemption of dependents. I doubt if IV can resist it for the simple reason "No one can resist an idea whose time has come!" We will know who is an idiot very soon dude. Just wait for a few days. Maybe you can use your seeming mastery of the Law to help out forum posters who have typical problems instead of running your mouth on this thread.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #59 (permalink)  
Old 08-24-2014, 10:50 PM
Facebook User
Priority Date
:
Category
:
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 174
rupen has much to be proud of rupen has much to be proud of rupen has much to be proud of rupen has much to be proud of rupen has much to be proud of rupen has much to be proud of rupen has much to be proud of rupen has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by columbusdude007 View Post
No. Not both. Just the exemption of dependents. I doubt if IV can resist it for the simple reason "No one can resist an idea whose time has come!" We will know who is an idiot very soon dude. Just wait for a few days. Maybe you can use your seeming mastery of the Law to help out forum posters who have typical problems instead of running your mouth on this thread.
I read this thread just now and saw this discussion stretching too far. so, I thought I should reply.

You and IV both want recapture and dependent exemption. Only difference is that IV by talking to DHS and WH administration knows that it can not be done administratively but based on the research that you have done and the information that you have got from other sources think that it can be done. So, let's complete this discussion at this point and move on to do things which would add value. You might have many legal and valid points on why this should be possible but it is not IV that you have to convince. It is WH and DHS who are going to make decision that you have to convince.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


  #60 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2014, 01:43 PM
Junior Member
Priority Date
:
Category
:
N/A
I140 Mailed Date
:
Chargeability
:
Processing Stage
:
I485 Mailed Date
:
Compare
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 12
penguin80 has a spectacular aura about penguin80 has a spectacular aura about penguin80 has a spectacular aura about
Default Recapture of unused visa

In some of the posts a lot of legal argument has already been regarding how the counting is done towards the cap. Can we have some discussion regarding legal aspects of recaptuing of unused visas. Below is a link to some obscure article on this topic.
Unused Visas: To Recapture or Not to Recapture- That Is The Question | Watson Immigration Law Blog

Here is what the Immigration Nationality Act says at ß 206 (8 USC 1156):
If an immigrant having an immigrant visa is denied admission to the United States and removed, or does not apply for admission before the expiration of the validity of his visa, or if an alien having an immigrant visa issued to him as a preference immigrant is found not to be a preference immigrant, an immigrant visa or a preference immigrant visa, as the case may be, may be issued in lieu thereof to another qualified alien.


This seems like a valid argument for recapturing unused visa. I understand IV has already worked towards getting H4 working status, but we really need a push to have people waiting in line for Eb2/Eb3 visas.
Bookmark and Share Compare Reply With Quote


Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Administrative Fixes.... RNGC All other Green Card Issues 5 02-17-2014 06:30 PM
Massive IV campaign for Administrative fixes pappu IV Agenda and Legislative Updates 931 04-19-2010 06:46 PM
Tracker: campaign for Administrative fixes: pappu IV Agenda and Legislative Updates 126 03-18-2008 12:01 PM
Administrative fixes post I-140 deba IV Agenda and Legislative Updates 1 12-16-2007 03:49 PM
Truth, Fiction and Lou Dobbs gcpool All other Green Card Issues 6 05-31-2007 12:24 AM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c)ImmigrationVoice.org