gc28262
07-28 01:48 PM
Judge blocks parts of Arizona immigration law - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration;_ylt=AgcIIY.ht_GJNzOqM3G8sH 6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta2N1b3FnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNz I4L3VzX2FyaXpvbmFfaW1taWdyYXRpb24EY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBv cHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM3BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW 5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNqdWRnZWJsb2Nrc3A-)
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
PHOENIX – A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.
But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.
The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar law elsewhere, prompted a boycott against the state and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state.
Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the border is awash in drugs and smugglers that the state badly wants to stop.
"It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told the Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is The responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that."
The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.
In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage.
The crowed clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!"
Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center.
"I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us."
Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.
"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. She added that a requirement of the law that police determine the immigration status of all arrested people will prompt legal immigrants to be "swept up by this requirement."
Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.
Bolton noted that the expected increase in immigration checks from Arizona will divert federal resources away from other priorities and said the federal government has shown that it's likely to succeed on its claim that such mandatory checks under the Arizona law would be trumped by federal law.
Responding to the ruling, Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said that the agency understands the frustration of Arizona residents with the immigration system. She added that a wide range of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement.
Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.
Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce.
"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."
Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction."
anu_t
05-09 05:29 PM
coolgc thanks and appericiate your responce.and Thansks for not misunderstanding. My spouce has just completed masters. and may probably do Phd in near future . :)
mpillai ,Got it now. I couldn't think of that point before. I myself 'm eligible for Eb2 but had to file my GC in Eb3 due to rules/regulations and very conservative giant company.
mpillai ,Got it now. I couldn't think of that point before. I myself 'm eligible for Eb2 but had to file my GC in Eb3 due to rules/regulations and very conservative giant company.
webm
05-06 09:14 AM
First of all there is no "substitution labor" anymore..USICS may not accept it according to a new rule set in last yr June..
delhiguy
07-02 03:13 PM
[QUOTE=vinabath]I paid for a 2007 labor for 15k. Now I am screwed.[/QUOTE
One of my friend was gonna do the same(buying a labor is illegal) , I stopped him , He called me and thanked me...
Never break rules , Never trust desi consultants...
One of my friend was gonna do the same(buying a labor is illegal) , I stopped him , He called me and thanked me...
Never break rules , Never trust desi consultants...
more...
webm
09-17 03:31 PM
Keep it up Chandu...Thanks
gc_check
04-09 07:27 AM
The indian consulate needs a proof of address for me and my wife
We sent them the Property tax bill and hoped that it would work but get this mail from travisa
Proof Of Residence - Unacceptable
The proof of address received in your application is not acceptable for submission to the Indian Consulate. You must submit a proof of residence/address that matches the present address on the PIO application exactly. Photocopy of state issued ID (Driver License or ID), or major utility bill (Water, Gas, Electric, Sewage) or a copy of a lease containing both the landlord and tenant signatures must be submitted. The following items are not accepted: cell phone bill, credit card statement or bank statement. The address cannot include a P.O. box. For minors, a parent or guardian proof of address from both parents may be submitted instead. You can fax the proof of address to Fax: (415) 644-0158. In addition, you also have the option of mailing a paper copy to the address below.
Now why does not a property tax not work ? it is issues by the county.
We do not have the current address on my wife's driver's license and her name is not there on the PGandE bill
Any suggestion ? or anyone had a similar issue ?
Thanks in advance !!
Sorry abt. that. Send other documents to show proof of address. Interesting to know, they are not accepting "Property Tax Notice" as proof of address. I happened to send the "Property Tax Notice" too, as it includes my wife's name, but also included the Driver's license for us both and it got accepted. You will have to attach copy of your Immigration Document as well, if you have EAD/AP or any other Document with current address and your Driver's license, you should be okay. Try calling them to discuss, they are pretty good in answering phone.
We sent them the Property tax bill and hoped that it would work but get this mail from travisa
Proof Of Residence - Unacceptable
The proof of address received in your application is not acceptable for submission to the Indian Consulate. You must submit a proof of residence/address that matches the present address on the PIO application exactly. Photocopy of state issued ID (Driver License or ID), or major utility bill (Water, Gas, Electric, Sewage) or a copy of a lease containing both the landlord and tenant signatures must be submitted. The following items are not accepted: cell phone bill, credit card statement or bank statement. The address cannot include a P.O. box. For minors, a parent or guardian proof of address from both parents may be submitted instead. You can fax the proof of address to Fax: (415) 644-0158. In addition, you also have the option of mailing a paper copy to the address below.
Now why does not a property tax not work ? it is issues by the county.
We do not have the current address on my wife's driver's license and her name is not there on the PGandE bill
Any suggestion ? or anyone had a similar issue ?
Thanks in advance !!
Sorry abt. that. Send other documents to show proof of address. Interesting to know, they are not accepting "Property Tax Notice" as proof of address. I happened to send the "Property Tax Notice" too, as it includes my wife's name, but also included the Driver's license for us both and it got accepted. You will have to attach copy of your Immigration Document as well, if you have EAD/AP or any other Document with current address and your Driver's license, you should be okay. Try calling them to discuss, they are pretty good in answering phone.
more...
drirshad
05-05 02:23 AM
USCIS TEXAS SERVICE CENTER EMAIL PILOT INITIATIVE:
EMPLOYMENT-BASED 1-485 SPECIAL NOTIFICATION PROTOCOL
April 22, 2010
PURPOSE: The purpose of the Texas Service Cemer (TSC) employment-based (EB) 1-485 Email Pilot Special Notification Initiative is to prOVide a mechanism by which applicants can facilitate TSC processes relating to speCific EB 1-485 application scenarios through an email address. The email address for this purpose is: EBUPDATE.Tsc@dhs.gov.
Applicants will receive an automatic reply from TSC stating that the email was received. After submitting infonnation through this pilot email initiative, one follow-up inquiry may be sent if no communication has been received from TSC, such as a decision notice, a request for evidence, or other notice, within 90 days.
The automatic email reply will proVide further information on how to submit the follow-up inquiry. This email account does not replace general inquiry processes that are in place for users; general inquiries
received at this email account will not be addressed.
EB 1-485 CASE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES
1. What is the procedure to notify TSC when an applicant is eligible for porting under AC21?
I. You should identify only one applicant in a single e-mail. E-mails must pertain to applicants whose 1-485s have been pending for 180 or more days and who are eligible for AC21 porting.
2. You should send an email to: EBUPDATE.Tsc@dhs.gov
3. On the subject line, you should write "EB 1-485/AC21." (Example: EB 1-485/AC21).
4. In the text of the email, you should prOVide: A-number, old employer's name and new employer's name. You should attach a copy of the new employer's letter of employment. The letter must
identify the follOWing information: the new employer, the letter's author and his/her job title, applicants new job title, start date of new employment, hours per week, salary, and specific description of the duties to be performed.
5. If the applicant has more than one A-number, you should type them both on the same line separated by a "/". (Example: All 1222333 I A444555666). If there are multiple family members, you should type them all on the same line separated by commas. (Example: AIII222333, A222333444, A444555666). You should also indicate which of the A-numbers is that of the principal 1-485 applicam I 1-140 beneficiary.
EMPLOYMENT-BASED 1-485 SPECIAL NOTIFICATION PROTOCOL
April 22, 2010
PURPOSE: The purpose of the Texas Service Cemer (TSC) employment-based (EB) 1-485 Email Pilot Special Notification Initiative is to prOVide a mechanism by which applicants can facilitate TSC processes relating to speCific EB 1-485 application scenarios through an email address. The email address for this purpose is: EBUPDATE.Tsc@dhs.gov.
Applicants will receive an automatic reply from TSC stating that the email was received. After submitting infonnation through this pilot email initiative, one follow-up inquiry may be sent if no communication has been received from TSC, such as a decision notice, a request for evidence, or other notice, within 90 days.
The automatic email reply will proVide further information on how to submit the follow-up inquiry. This email account does not replace general inquiry processes that are in place for users; general inquiries
received at this email account will not be addressed.
EB 1-485 CASE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES
1. What is the procedure to notify TSC when an applicant is eligible for porting under AC21?
I. You should identify only one applicant in a single e-mail. E-mails must pertain to applicants whose 1-485s have been pending for 180 or more days and who are eligible for AC21 porting.
2. You should send an email to: EBUPDATE.Tsc@dhs.gov
3. On the subject line, you should write "EB 1-485/AC21." (Example: EB 1-485/AC21).
4. In the text of the email, you should prOVide: A-number, old employer's name and new employer's name. You should attach a copy of the new employer's letter of employment. The letter must
identify the follOWing information: the new employer, the letter's author and his/her job title, applicants new job title, start date of new employment, hours per week, salary, and specific description of the duties to be performed.
5. If the applicant has more than one A-number, you should type them both on the same line separated by a "/". (Example: All 1222333 I A444555666). If there are multiple family members, you should type them all on the same line separated by commas. (Example: AIII222333, A222333444, A444555666). You should also indicate which of the A-numbers is that of the principal 1-485 applicam I 1-140 beneficiary.
Libra
09-15 08:32 PM
All east coast people should not miss this opportunity, this is the only chance to get things straight. com on guys, if you can't take one day off, no one will give you GC in years. when people are coming from wahsington, why can't you? change your mind, you have other four days to make up your hours at work
more...
andr.in
10-05 03:03 AM
omg lositnbeta, that's cool! I just got photoshop so I'm a beginner! But that pic is so cool! I like the flash in the center!
I'll see if I can come up with something in 3DS MAX!
I'll see if I can come up with something in 3DS MAX!
mgarvey
08-07 02:17 PM
Thanks each and everyone in the forum, you guys so great
more...
willwin
08-11 11:29 AM
Ok we have the poll, now can we start guessing when our dates will be current.
possibly we need another poll with these options asking when do you think your PD will be current
1) 10-12 years
2) 12-15 years
3) 15 - 20 years
:(
You are one optimistic dude in EB3 queue!!
Not so early :-)
possibly we need another poll with these options asking when do you think your PD will be current
1) 10-12 years
2) 12-15 years
3) 15 - 20 years
:(
You are one optimistic dude in EB3 queue!!
Not so early :-)
optimystic
09-29 08:43 PM
USCIS has updated the processing dates pages of all the four service centers on September 28. Now the pages say that these dates are valid as of July 31, 2008 only.
If I remember well the processing dates information was more up-to-date earlier.
So looks like CIS has backtracked from their earlier published dates. They are telling us that they simply cannot tell what the current processing dates are. All they can tell us is that what applications they were processing on July 31.
What can we deduce from this? Is it good? Is it bad? Or no relevance?
It could be good as CIS might be processing July 2007 485 applications as of today? Or may be not.
Simply more confusion, as if as it is we were not confused enough.
Its hard to gauge what they are trying to do here by mentioning that the processing dates are accurate only as of July 31, 2008. But just attempting to make a few guesses. I might be totally wrong though
- May be they are trying to cover up their silly, non-backable acts of swinging Processing Dates back and forth as a pendulum. And hence keep the web posting data perpetually at a older date, so that if some official corners them they can say "Oh, forget the web data, it is out of date. Here's the more updated *internal* info" . But at the same time to the general public , they can point to "Go look at the web data, I can't open a service request for you based on where the processing dates are at" and thus avoid all accountability and head aches of opening service requests etc.
- May be they are going to fast forward the dates now that the PDs are retrogressed and people can't file service requests left and right based on processing dates outside normal processing times.
If I remember well the processing dates information was more up-to-date earlier.
So looks like CIS has backtracked from their earlier published dates. They are telling us that they simply cannot tell what the current processing dates are. All they can tell us is that what applications they were processing on July 31.
What can we deduce from this? Is it good? Is it bad? Or no relevance?
It could be good as CIS might be processing July 2007 485 applications as of today? Or may be not.
Simply more confusion, as if as it is we were not confused enough.
Its hard to gauge what they are trying to do here by mentioning that the processing dates are accurate only as of July 31, 2008. But just attempting to make a few guesses. I might be totally wrong though
- May be they are trying to cover up their silly, non-backable acts of swinging Processing Dates back and forth as a pendulum. And hence keep the web posting data perpetually at a older date, so that if some official corners them they can say "Oh, forget the web data, it is out of date. Here's the more updated *internal* info" . But at the same time to the general public , they can point to "Go look at the web data, I can't open a service request for you based on where the processing dates are at" and thus avoid all accountability and head aches of opening service requests etc.
- May be they are going to fast forward the dates now that the PDs are retrogressed and people can't file service requests left and right based on processing dates outside normal processing times.
more...
cvk90
07-05 05:19 PM
I've been contributing to Social security and everything...could other share their experiences ?
canleo98
11-11 09:56 PM
I renewed my passport from Indian SF consulate by mail. I had send my passport in Aug 2010 with Notarized supporting documents like photocopies of driving license and H1B. I did not notarize passport photos. I got my passport back after 5 weeks without any problem. Hope this helps.
more...
Steve Mitchell
January 3rd, 2005, 01:06 PM
As of 1-03-2005:
PC World Top Ten Digital Cameras
[/url]
Cyber-shot DSC-W1 Silver Digital Camera (Sony) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=34590)
Ultra Zoom C-765 Digital Camera (Olympus) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=34414)
Powershot A75 Digital Camera (Canon) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=33595)
PowerShot S1 IS Digital Camera (Canon) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=32926)
PowerShot S500 Digital Camera (Canon) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=14288)
PowerShot S410 Digital Camera (Canon) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=8611)
Wide Zoom C-5060 Digital Camera (Olympus) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=1929)
D70 SLR Digital Camera (Nikon) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=972)
Cybershot DSC-T1 Digital Camera (Sony) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=703)
[url="http://pcworld.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php?masterid=631669&mode=pcw_rss&RSS=RSS"]CoolPix 4300 Digital Camera (Nikon) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=701)
PC World Top Ten Digital Cameras
[/url]
Cyber-shot DSC-W1 Silver Digital Camera (Sony) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=34590)
Ultra Zoom C-765 Digital Camera (Olympus) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=34414)
Powershot A75 Digital Camera (Canon) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=33595)
PowerShot S1 IS Digital Camera (Canon) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=32926)
PowerShot S500 Digital Camera (Canon) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=14288)
PowerShot S410 Digital Camera (Canon) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=8611)
Wide Zoom C-5060 Digital Camera (Olympus) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=1929)
D70 SLR Digital Camera (Nikon) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=972)
Cybershot DSC-T1 Digital Camera (Sony) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=703)
[url="http://pcworld.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php?masterid=631669&mode=pcw_rss&RSS=RSS"]CoolPix 4300 Digital Camera (Nikon) (http://www.dphoto.us/news/node/add/blog?iid=701)