Technical Comments for "EAD for I-140" rule

[hil3182]

Here is a link to the technical comments we submitted yesterday.

It is a pretty dense read, please read through the end - carefully.

[BABUG]

With the little knowledge i had I felt that
The Questions to DHS is like Extended Version of Aman's Speech earlier

I also like the below comment in the way it was quoted.
"we ask that DHS either remove the “Compelling Circumstances” requirement or make long backlogs as a “compelling circumstance”.

Again Thanks for the IV team for their Great Work

[testingtimes]

I saw the horror stories published. I had written to the white house. Here was a reply from the white house I got. Wonder if it will help in any way! This was in Oct 2015.

Thank you for writing. The United States is a nation of immigrants who strive to achieve the American dream. However, this country’s immigration system has been broken for a very long time, and too often it has an unfair and burdensome impact on the individuals it was meant to assist. Emails like yours underscore the hardships created by this system, and they show we must do more to fix it.

People shouldn’t have to worry about spending years stuck in line or separated from loved ones, and law‑abiding families shouldn’t have to live in constant fear of being torn apart. America didn’t raise the Statue of Liberty with her back to the world—we did it with her light shining as a beacon to the world, because we were strangers once, too.

No matter who we were or where we came from—whether we fled famine, war, or persecution; whether we had the right documents or particular skills; whether we were wealthy or poor—we shared the hope that America would be the place where we could finally build a better life for ourselves, our children, and future generations. Everyone deserves that opportunity, and I want you to know I am going to keep fighting for people like you.

To learn more about the steps I am taking to help bring relief to those suffering from the consequences of a broken immigration system, visit [http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/Immigratio...gration-Action. To contact U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or get information about a current USCIS case, visit www.USCIS.gov or call 1‑800‑375‑5283. For problems with a USCIS application or petition, you can also contact the USCIS Ombudsman at [http://www.DHS.gov/Case-Assistance]w...ase-Assistance. For information on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, visit www.ICE.gov or call 1‑888‑351‑4024. For help with visa processing, eligibility, waivers, and other inquiries, visit [USVisas.State.gov]USVisas.State.gov.

Military families can call 1‑877‑247‑4645 for help with immigration‑related questions. Information on jobs, child care, health benefits, housing assistance, and other public resources available to those in need can be found at 1‑800‑FED‑INFO or www.USA.gov.

Sincerely,


Barack Obama

[thankstooptx]

Originally Posted by hil3182

Here is a link to the technical comments we submitted yesterday.

It is a pretty dense read, please read through the end - carefully.

Thank everyone who toiled hard for this. Appreciate all your efforts.

[krish2005]

Admins,

I was scanning through the document and found that it was articulated so well and all the faults have been highlighted with required intensity.

Hope and wish that you could drill the problems much more into the hearts of the decision makers and help us get necessary relief.

Thanks for all the hard work and we really appreciate the effort.

Krishna

[GC2022]

Guys,

Its been a rough 2 months. Thanks for the hard work.

[foia]

Excellent work, immigration voice team. No words to appraise you guys. This will certainly pay you back. God Bless you, Aman bhai.

[d.kiran]

Can I ask a question ? Copied from my FB question and cleaned up for clarity.

The comment is very well thought out and very detailed. I have a very basic question, that I am sure you all would have thought about or is probably not even relevant.

At the risk of extreme oversimplification, the majority of the argument rests on the fact that a valid PERM and a valid I-140 (based on the PERM) are used to provide unlimited H1b extensions. However, the congressional intent is to provide "Job flexibility" and "ONE TIME EXTENSION" . Therefore, if the intent was to provide one time extension and allow job flexibility, then the only way is to provide an EAD and AP.

This is certainly a novel approach (and highlights why IV did not publish the comments earlier) , but the potential downside could be that DHS could say we will need a new PERM and new I-140 for every H1b extension. Is this not a valid risk or do you believe employers would not let this happen ?

[ashwink]

Originally Posted by d.kiran

Can I ask a question ? Copied from my FB question and cleaned up for clarity.

The comment is very well thought out and very detailed. I have a very basic question, that I am sure you all would have thought about or is probably not even relevant.

At the risk of extreme oversimplification, the majority of the argument rests on the fact that a valid PERM and a valid I-140 (based on the PERM) are used to provide unlimited H1b extensions. However, the congressional intent is to provide "Job flexibility" and "ONE TIME EXTENSION" . Therefore, if the intent was to provide one time extension and allow job flexibility, then the only way is to provide an EAD and AP.

This is certainly a novel approach (and highlights why IV did not publish the comments earlier) , but the potential downside could be that DHS could say we will need a new PERM and new I-140 for every H1b extension. Is this not a valid risk or do you believe employers would not let this happen ?

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.

[d.kiran]

Originally Posted by ashwink

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 :-)

[DMX17]

Originally Posted by ashwink

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.

Very good summary! I am glad that you were able to clearly get the main points of the IV comments. The regulation in the current form is so fucked up that it was just screamingly asking for it!

But another main point I would like to add is to quote Aman Kapoor for saying this many times every time he speaks “The purpose of the immigration laws is firstly to protection the interest of U.S. workers” and “this system of indentured servitude of H-1B’s tied to their employers is hurting U.S. workers and this proposed regulation is against the core intent of immigration laws”.

[HumHongeKaamyaab]

Originally Posted by DMX17

Very good summary! I am glad that you were able to clearly get the main points of the IV comments. The regulation in the current form is so fucked up that it was just screamingly asking for it!

But another main point I would like to add is to quote Aman Kapoor for saying this many times every time he speaks “The purpose of the immigration laws is firstly to protection the interest of U.S. workers” and “this system of indentured servitude of H-1B’s tied to their employers is hurting U.S. workers and this proposed regulation is against the core intent of immigration laws”.

I read the document word by word and found myself feeling emotionally drained because iI could UNDERSTAND what was in the document. This is a great feat to put together such a compelling argument and anyone with half a heart should have no issues relating to our plight. I praise all the hard work IV has put in.

I guess I'm jumping the gun a bit, but I was wondering ..isn't there enough reasons that this comment from IV provides us to sue DHS? How can they justify all the crap they are doing?

[DMX17]

Originally Posted by HumHongeKaamyaab

I read the document word by word and found myself feeling emotionally drained because iI could UNDERSTAND what was in the document. This is a great feat to put together such a compelling argument and anyone with half a heart should have no issues relating to our plight. I praise all the hard work IV has put in.

I guess I'm jumping the gun a bit, but I was wondering ..isn't there enough reasons that this comment from IV provides us to sue DHS? How can they justify all the crap they are doing?

I personally do not know the answer as none of us here are lawyers. Your point seems valid that DHS cannot just make whatever regulation they think serves the purpose of the INA statutes. The irony is that the immigration lawyers (who have written blogs etc.) seem to imply that DHS did not go far enough because of fear of lawsuit, and you come along to say the exact opposite : We should sue because DHS did not go far enough!

Your point seems reasonable to me.

[thankstooptx]

Originally Posted by HumHongeKaamyaab

I read the document word by word and found myself feeling emotionally drained because iI could UNDERSTAND what was in the document. This is a great feat to put together such a compelling argument and anyone with half a heart should have no issues relating to our plight. I praise all the hard work IV has put in.

I guess I'm jumping the gun a bit, but I was wondering ..isn't there enough reasons that this comment from IV provides us to sue DHS? How can they justify all the crap they are doing?

"sue DHS?"
This was my exact thought. If it was any other agency (IRS, FCC etc) that misinterpreted the laws, they would have faced a shitstorm how is DHS able to get away with this?

[HumHongeKaamyaab]

Originally Posted by thankstooptx

"sue DHS?"
This was my exact thought. If it was any other agency (IRS, FCC etc) that misinterpreted the laws, they would have faced a shitstorm how is DHS able to get away with this?

How is DHS able to get away with this? is the same question as : "How is anyone able to get away with anything?"

Answer - "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. "

Because the people who are correct and 'shareef' decide to stay silent.

Because the one person who is reading this thinks "Mere bolne se kuch nahi hoga..to main chup rahoonga..next comment padh lete hain ab aur phir dinner karenge while watching CNN or Netflix"...rinse and repeat the next day..

Because we as Indians are too 'timid' because our parents taught us (Incorrectly) to stay in the back of the line and don't make a sound..otherwise harm might come to us..to not do any 'leaderi' or 'chaudhrayi'...when this is the EXACT need of this hour..

Because we will buy a $60 shirt from Armani and post pics on Facebook ..but will not donate $60 to IV to support their need for a lobbyist..

Because ..because ...because...you all know the reasons...but you all cannot change those reasons...cos change is too much work yaar...