newbee7
07-09 04:23 PM
Whenever i say this "Such policies, unless backed by legal basis, are not enforceable" Everybody starts bashing me up...
So you be ready toooo.
I would be very happy , if all the H1B guys get EAD , but i cant just give a statement against DOS/USCIS till i am 100% sure.
Are we 100% SURE that this happened???
Is there any clause in the law, which lets them do this ,If FBI doesnt give any information for 6 months/1 Year... I dont know , so i will let the court decide.
In some cases, security clearances required by the F.B.I. were not entirely completed, immigration officials said. The agency approved some applications “when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,” Mr. Aytes said.
"not entirely completed" = INCOMPLETE
I think this should count for 100%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/06visa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
So you be ready toooo.
I would be very happy , if all the H1B guys get EAD , but i cant just give a statement against DOS/USCIS till i am 100% sure.
Are we 100% SURE that this happened???
Is there any clause in the law, which lets them do this ,If FBI doesnt give any information for 6 months/1 Year... I dont know , so i will let the court decide.
In some cases, security clearances required by the F.B.I. were not entirely completed, immigration officials said. The agency approved some applications “when we were certain the process will be completed very shortly,” Mr. Aytes said.
"not entirely completed" = INCOMPLETE
I think this should count for 100%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/06visa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
wallpaper GIBSON LES PAUL
atlfp
03-15 11:27 PM
It has to do with the labor processing. Before PERM was implemented, Labor certificate took a long time for a lot of States. So a lot of EB2 people was stuck in the labor cerfiticate stage when EB2 was current. Now they've passed that stage and are waiting.
C'mon guys, what the hell have you been doing for so long?
I mean look at the archived Visa Bulletins, you observe the following:
1. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2003
2. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2004
3. EB2 was current for India till August 2005
4. After the retrogression in 2005, EB2 India moved up quickly through 2003-2004 to April 2004 by the beginning of 2007
5. Even after the summer 2007 fiasco (EB2 Current fro July, August 2007), the priority date for EB2 India moved to April 2004 and stayed there for 3 months
What more do you wish for?
I don't understand how there any can be anyone from 2004-2005 India still left in the EB2 category.
This is pathetic. What the hell have you been waiting for?
C'mon guys, what the hell have you been doing for so long?
I mean look at the archived Visa Bulletins, you observe the following:
1. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2003
2. EB2 was current for India ALL THROUGH 2004
3. EB2 was current for India till August 2005
4. After the retrogression in 2005, EB2 India moved up quickly through 2003-2004 to April 2004 by the beginning of 2007
5. Even after the summer 2007 fiasco (EB2 Current fro July, August 2007), the priority date for EB2 India moved to April 2004 and stayed there for 3 months
What more do you wish for?
I don't understand how there any can be anyone from 2004-2005 India still left in the EB2 category.
This is pathetic. What the hell have you been waiting for?
vin
06-12 05:06 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19127991/site/newsweek/
38/50 dems voted for bill
Only 7/38 rep voted for bill.
There is a good chance that Bush will get 15 more out of 38 to favor the bill.
38/50 dems voted for bill
Only 7/38 rep voted for bill.
There is a good chance that Bush will get 15 more out of 38 to favor the bill.
2011 I have a Studio with what is
go_gc_way
12-28 11:13 AM
Thanks Boreal,Subba.
I looked at the following sites
1) www.aapkamanoranjan.com
2) www.lokvani.com (This is a paper magazine as well).
Wrote to the editors of lokvani, if they can post a classified , they do not have free classifieds. aapkamanoranjan, wont let me send them feedback or contact them.
This is a good beginning. We have posted in several sites, having completed this we all will have completed a good effort for IV (INFACT FOR YOU)
Can other members please come forward and list the sites that are regional in their cities and post in them .... 15 minutes and you will have contributed to this thread :-).
What do you folks suggest, shall I change the thread name to something more attractive ...to get evrey one's one's attention on the Forum first. :-)
I looked at the following sites
1) www.aapkamanoranjan.com
2) www.lokvani.com (This is a paper magazine as well).
Wrote to the editors of lokvani, if they can post a classified , they do not have free classifieds. aapkamanoranjan, wont let me send them feedback or contact them.
This is a good beginning. We have posted in several sites, having completed this we all will have completed a good effort for IV (INFACT FOR YOU)
Can other members please come forward and list the sites that are regional in their cities and post in them .... 15 minutes and you will have contributed to this thread :-).
What do you folks suggest, shall I change the thread name to something more attractive ...to get evrey one's one's attention on the Forum first. :-)
more...
Munna Bhai
12-26 02:01 PM
Thanks for the reply, if old employer revokes I-140 while the other employer is still working on LC+I-140, Will this creates any problem for me?
-Thanks,
-Thanks,
ujjwal_p
10-10 05:45 PM
If verified, you would end up in eating ham burger.
Allow me :
"We get caught laundering money, we're not going to white color resort prison. No, no, no. We're going to Federal pound me in the a** prison" -- Office Space
Allow me :
"We get caught laundering money, we're not going to white color resort prison. No, no, no. We're going to Federal pound me in the a** prison" -- Office Space
more...
harrybond
08-19 03:34 PM
[
JunRN
Senior Member
what's ur reasoning behind ur statement?
QUOTE=JunRN;150114]To understand the Visa bulletin, one must first understand that it is not the USCIS that computes or post VB, it is the DOS. DOS also considers those undergoing consular processing. In this case, the dates are in favor of those doing CP as we all know that most of those who are qualified to apply for AOS have already applied.
Retrogression is a CP-friendly event.[/QUOTE]
JunRN
Senior Member
what's ur reasoning behind ur statement?
QUOTE=JunRN;150114]To understand the Visa bulletin, one must first understand that it is not the USCIS that computes or post VB, it is the DOS. DOS also considers those undergoing consular processing. In this case, the dates are in favor of those doing CP as we all know that most of those who are qualified to apply for AOS have already applied.
Retrogression is a CP-friendly event.[/QUOTE]
2010 tattoo 07 Gibson Les Paul
Rajeev
12-14 01:59 PM
I am from Park Ridge NJ. I will join the conference today.
more...
Ramba
02-21 03:00 PM
Assuming you are right then,
average visa issued for EB1 ROW+Non ROW over the last 5 years have been 26K,
Now assuming this year the demand would be close to average then. It leaves 14K for EB2
Implying 12/2003 dates movement is very likely as 14k>5k (your number)
Dont rely on tracitt. no one knows how many report there. It is not scientific or true. For right numbers, anlyse the DOS report for each year, if you hva more time.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
average visa issued for EB1 ROW+Non ROW over the last 5 years have been 26K,
Now assuming this year the demand would be close to average then. It leaves 14K for EB2
Implying 12/2003 dates movement is very likely as 14k>5k (your number)
Dont rely on tracitt. no one knows how many report there. It is not scientific or true. For right numbers, anlyse the DOS report for each year, if you hva more time.
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
hair Com - Gibson Les Paul Studio
Dakota Newfie
07-03 11:27 AM
I admit, it seems discriminatory to say you can't get your GC now because you're from this country or that country but these "high volume" countries have created the current back log through their sheer numbers and sometimes multiple applications, not the system. The system is fair to ALL and for some group to say that it isn't fair because all of that group isn't getting what they want is unjust to the rest of us. I knew I would be pounced upon when I submitted my original post and it only proves my point of personal agendas; sometimes I wonder what the "I" in "IV" really stands for? Don't be so arrogant as to believe that your higher education should give you more rights than others - that doesn't fly with me! I am frustrated with this forum because of this arrogance and I may not visit too much longer!
I do have one question for all of you who are in favor of eliminating the per country limit; do you support an eventual road to citizenship for the large group of people who dominate the "other side" of immigration? If you don't, some may think you hipocritical to want the rules changed for yourselves!
I do have one question for all of you who are in favor of eliminating the per country limit; do you support an eventual road to citizenship for the large group of people who dominate the "other side" of immigration? If you don't, some may think you hipocritical to want the rules changed for yourselves!
more...
mbawa2574
02-18 06:19 PM
Sorry guys, I misread somewhere.:D
What about illegal immigrants with < 5years. I think these senators will leave the overall problem unsolved.
Whenever you talk with any politician , illegal immigration pops in. They just love it...
I am not sure any of these people understand immigration laws.
Hmm Is this different from India or any other country ? ...no
Politician preach what majority vote bank likes...I have no hopes from this anti-business, anti-innovation congress and an inexperienced President. When they started their gig with voting against Skilled Immigrants, I am not sure what else is coming.
On the other hand- Watch out Obama's economic recovery plans, they punish every person who is successful by virtue of his hardwork and will add debt on US books.. I am sure Obama would be driving out innovation from this country by joining hands with Anti-Captalist and Anti-business lobby.
What about illegal immigrants with < 5years. I think these senators will leave the overall problem unsolved.
Whenever you talk with any politician , illegal immigration pops in. They just love it...
I am not sure any of these people understand immigration laws.
Hmm Is this different from India or any other country ? ...no
Politician preach what majority vote bank likes...I have no hopes from this anti-business, anti-innovation congress and an inexperienced President. When they started their gig with voting against Skilled Immigrants, I am not sure what else is coming.
On the other hand- Watch out Obama's economic recovery plans, they punish every person who is successful by virtue of his hardwork and will add debt on US books.. I am sure Obama would be driving out innovation from this country by joining hands with Anti-Captalist and Anti-business lobby.
hot 2001 Gibson Les Paul Deluxe
nomi
12-11 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by god_bless_you
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??
Yes, I was wondering the same thing.
The only plausible explanation for requiring congress' approval, that I am able to come up with, is that we bundled many requests along with the request for concurrent processing of 140/485, like additional visa numbers etc., which I think are not in the hands of USCIS.
We would need congress approval to increase visa numbers, etc. But for changing the rule to allow concurrent 140/485 processing is probably within the jurisdiction of the USCIS.
Originally Posted by god_bless_you
SO if USCIS wants to make a new rule of filing I485 for the one whose I 140 is cleared and priority date is not current, It CAN DO That RULE Right?
We do not need any Congress approval for that Right?
If so can we explore this option??
Yes, I was wondering the same thing.
The only plausible explanation for requiring congress' approval, that I am able to come up with, is that we bundled many requests along with the request for concurrent processing of 140/485, like additional visa numbers etc., which I think are not in the hands of USCIS.
We would need congress approval to increase visa numbers, etc. But for changing the rule to allow concurrent 140/485 processing is probably within the jurisdiction of the USCIS.
more...
house Gibson Les Paul Studio
willwin
03-20 12:14 PM
NO, no way.
There are tens of thousands of EB2 India applicants from 2000 to 2002. Add labor substituters, EB2 converters, and you'll be lucky to see EB-2 India at even Dec 2002. Most likely within a few weeks of Apr, all EB-2 India visas will get used up. Keep in mind the new EB-2 numbers are from EB-1 India flowover. So it's going to last even less time than Oct-Nov last year.
If USCIS does not use over 100K VISA numbers by May 31st or june 15th, then DOS will 100% move the dates forward for both India and China (and for EB3 and EB2). That's the only way DOS can use close to 140K before FY ends.
Dates may or may not become current as DOS learnt a lesson or two last year. But, dates will move forward. I won't be surprised if EB3 goes to Dec 2005 (atleast) and EB2 goes to Dec 2006 (atleast) by july 2008 VISA bulletin.
If it does not happen, do not shoot me down. It means, USCIS has used most of the numbers from this FY and then people will get their GC based on their PD and per country quota and other norms.
Going by past history, USCIS will not use the numbers and dates will move. Less than 100 days, wait and see.
There are tens of thousands of EB2 India applicants from 2000 to 2002. Add labor substituters, EB2 converters, and you'll be lucky to see EB-2 India at even Dec 2002. Most likely within a few weeks of Apr, all EB-2 India visas will get used up. Keep in mind the new EB-2 numbers are from EB-1 India flowover. So it's going to last even less time than Oct-Nov last year.
If USCIS does not use over 100K VISA numbers by May 31st or june 15th, then DOS will 100% move the dates forward for both India and China (and for EB3 and EB2). That's the only way DOS can use close to 140K before FY ends.
Dates may or may not become current as DOS learnt a lesson or two last year. But, dates will move forward. I won't be surprised if EB3 goes to Dec 2005 (atleast) and EB2 goes to Dec 2006 (atleast) by july 2008 VISA bulletin.
If it does not happen, do not shoot me down. It means, USCIS has used most of the numbers from this FY and then people will get their GC based on their PD and per country quota and other norms.
Going by past history, USCIS will not use the numbers and dates will move. Less than 100 days, wait and see.
tattoo 1972 Ibanez Les Paul Deluxe
indianabacklog
02-12 04:07 PM
Its like what NAZIS did to Jews.. Cmon this is America, lets post this to President Obama's website
This is NOTHING like what the Nazis did to the Jews. It is highly inappropriate to even suggest this. Go away, read your second world war history and you will quickly realize this.
What the US is doing is trying to save jobs for its own. Normal process when things are looking so bad. This has been happening all over the world in many countries for decades.
This level of drama is not going to win anybody any favors. Need to remain level headed and understand the reasoning behind what is happening.
This is NOTHING like what the Nazis did to the Jews. It is highly inappropriate to even suggest this. Go away, read your second world war history and you will quickly realize this.
What the US is doing is trying to save jobs for its own. Normal process when things are looking so bad. This has been happening all over the world in many countries for decades.
This level of drama is not going to win anybody any favors. Need to remain level headed and understand the reasoning behind what is happening.
more...
pictures Gibson Les Paul Standard 2008
belmontboy
03-21 04:48 PM
There is no requirement for any company to sponsor green cards for any employee. A job is granted to you based on requirement of the company. Once that requirement no longer exists, the company can (and should) lay off the employee. This applies to H1 extensions and filing of GC.
GC filing is completely based on the company needing your service. Unless you totally excel and become indispensible to the company, they do not need to keep you. This is unlike a secure Govt. job in most 3rd world countries.
The conclusion is that this list would include ALL COMPANIES IN THE WORLD (and some Govts jobs). However, the list is not of rogue companies but simply companies that are run well.
Speaking generally, companies have no requirement to provide other benefits like health insurance, 401k, options...etc. But why do most companies offer these? - They do so to attract top talent. That's how a company distinguishes itself from its competitors.
Applying for GC has become one of the incentives.
A company offering GC incentive during hiring, but withholding it, would amount to unethical practice. And is certainly bound to lose its top talents (specifically immigrant ones)
GC filing is completely based on the company needing your service. Unless you totally excel and become indispensible to the company, they do not need to keep you. This is unlike a secure Govt. job in most 3rd world countries.
The conclusion is that this list would include ALL COMPANIES IN THE WORLD (and some Govts jobs). However, the list is not of rogue companies but simply companies that are run well.
Speaking generally, companies have no requirement to provide other benefits like health insurance, 401k, options...etc. But why do most companies offer these? - They do so to attract top talent. That's how a company distinguishes itself from its competitors.
Applying for GC has become one of the incentives.
A company offering GC incentive during hiring, but withholding it, would amount to unethical practice. And is certainly bound to lose its top talents (specifically immigrant ones)
dresses Gibson Les Paul Studio
sam_hoosier
12-13 04:05 PM
You can get a colleague who has worked with you in the old company to give you an experience letter on his letterhead, and that will work for GC purposes.
more...
makeup Replica Gibson Les Paul
Ramba
07-14 06:01 PM
Consult an attorney because if you applied for I-485 in July 2007 and quit employer in August, you might not be covered under AC21 since 6 months did not pass since adjucation request (I-485) was files with USCIS.
This is aboslutly incorrect. Dont spread false information.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
This is aboslutly incorrect. Dont spread false information.
Here is the Q&A in USCIS memo abot changing employer before 180 days
Question 10. Should service centers or district offices deny portability cases on the sole basis that the alien has left his or her employment with the I-140 petitioner prior to the I-485 application pending for 180 days?
Answer: No. The basis for adjustment is not actual (current) employment but prospective employment. Since there is no requirement that the alien have ever been employed by the petitioner while the I-140 and/or I-485 was pending, the fact that an alien left the I-140 petitioner before the I-485 has been pending 180 days will not necessarily render the alien ineligible to port. However, in all cases an offer of employment must have been bona fide. This means that, as of the time the I-140 was filed and at the time of filing the I-485 if not filed concurrently, the I-140 petitioner must have had the intent to employ the beneficiary, and the alien must have intended to undertake the employment, upon adjustment. Adjudicators should not presume absence of such intent and may take the I-140 and supporting documents themselves as prima facie evidence of such intent, but in appropriate cases additional evidence or investigation may be appropriate
girlfriend 1979 Porn - My Les Paul Forums
thirdworldman
02-17 10:20 PM
I've never used it, but Blender 3d is free, and from what I've seen, there's a pretty nice set of tools there...blender3d.com
hairstyles Epiphone Les Paul Studio
GreenLantern
02-15 08:30 AM
I want to see how you would go about doing it in a 3D program though.
pappu
06-10 12:28 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
realizeit
10-17 03:25 PM
This is a very important effort, I guess.
I believe, this will help all of us to understand where we all stand. I will try to send this request as soon as possible.
I believe, this will help all of us to understand where we all stand. I will try to send this request as soon as possible.
