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."
sparky63
November 21st, 2005, 11:41 AM
I agree that #2 is the sharpest, but I like #4 best. The smoke trails from his nose and mouth give the shot a little extra interest ... almost makes the smoke a second subject or character in the shot.
digital2k
08-03 06:31 PM
*
pappu
04-10 11:55 AM
Please update your profile with details so that it can be helpful to everyone tracking the success
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/profile.php?do=editprofile
on IV tracker
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_tracker&Itemid=63
IV members are requested to update their profile with valid dates so that we can make IV tracker helpful for everyone.
I have personally decided to make this request to everyone who does not have their details completed and only then respond to the member. If a member has bogus data in their profile for tracking purposes I would not be replying to that post. This might help encourage members wanting replies from IV core team for their questions.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/profile.php?do=editprofile
on IV tracker
http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_tracker&Itemid=63
IV members are requested to update their profile with valid dates so that we can make IV tracker helpful for everyone.
I have personally decided to make this request to everyone who does not have their details completed and only then respond to the member. If a member has bogus data in their profile for tracking purposes I would not be replying to that post. This might help encourage members wanting replies from IV core team for their questions.
more...
jonty_11
02-14 04:17 PM
In the RIR system EB2 was MS + 3 and BS+5.
If BS+5 is still the norm in PERM...how come MS+0 is acceptable under PERM. Did they change the rule....I think this a loophole
If BS+5 is still the norm in PERM...how come MS+0 is acceptable under PERM. Did they change the rule....I think this a loophole
a_yaja
10-07 01:47 PM
My H1B expire on 9/30 as well as my I-94 also expires 9/30. Some how I miss my H1B extenction. I have EAD that is valid until next year mid. I am working right now what is my current status? Is they any way still i can extend my H1B.
My employer is saying there is no way to extend H1B after crossing the last date. You have to work on EAD.
But my question my I94 is expired on 9/30 then what is my current staus.
thanks in advance.
You need to file a new I-9 with EAD as condition of employment ASAP. Otherwise you are working without authorization as your H1B has expired. As far as status is concerned, you are good as you are on AOS, but file the new I-9 (with HR dept. of your employer) quickly to avoid possible complications in your GC process.
My employer is saying there is no way to extend H1B after crossing the last date. You have to work on EAD.
But my question my I94 is expired on 9/30 then what is my current staus.
thanks in advance.
You need to file a new I-9 with EAD as condition of employment ASAP. Otherwise you are working without authorization as your H1B has expired. As far as status is concerned, you are good as you are on AOS, but file the new I-9 (with HR dept. of your employer) quickly to avoid possible complications in your GC process.
more...
chintu25
10-02 01:46 PM
I will give 50 for each 1500...2000 and 2500 mark
GO IV
:)
GO IV
:)
logiclife
01-02 11:34 AM
All set
IInd Question:
For Filing AC21 , do I need letter from the my future employer that job profile matches. My Job Title Matches my Labor Certification Title It was Software Enggineer Now it is Senior Software Engineering, But As I am in IT my old labor certification says about some old Oracle Technology but new job is J2EE and Also my Labor Certification talks about Financial Business Area but New Job is HealthCare Sector.Common thing are Both Says Design and Development of Software application.. Is it OK ?
Regarding having a match, take a lawyer's help to find out what occupation code (based on DOT - dictionary of occupationsl titles) or ONET code your previous job (in labor cert) was.
Try to take up a new job whose description would land you in the same or similar DOT code or ONET code and ask your lawyer to translate descriptions into ONET and DOT codes.
AC21 portability has never been used in such a widespread manner for such a prolonged period so a lot of new changes are likely to happen thru new interpretations done by USCIS. This time, AC21 will be used by folks for atleast 2-3 years before they get GC, just due to retrogression.
IInd Question:
For Filing AC21 , do I need letter from the my future employer that job profile matches. My Job Title Matches my Labor Certification Title It was Software Enggineer Now it is Senior Software Engineering, But As I am in IT my old labor certification says about some old Oracle Technology but new job is J2EE and Also my Labor Certification talks about Financial Business Area but New Job is HealthCare Sector.Common thing are Both Says Design and Development of Software application.. Is it OK ?
Regarding having a match, take a lawyer's help to find out what occupation code (based on DOT - dictionary of occupationsl titles) or ONET code your previous job (in labor cert) was.
Try to take up a new job whose description would land you in the same or similar DOT code or ONET code and ask your lawyer to translate descriptions into ONET and DOT codes.
AC21 portability has never been used in such a widespread manner for such a prolonged period so a lot of new changes are likely to happen thru new interpretations done by USCIS. This time, AC21 will be used by folks for atleast 2-3 years before they get GC, just due to retrogression.
more...
Khujaokutta
05-15 05:25 PM
This gentleman is Feb 06 and is worried about his wife's GC not being approved, while folks and a lot of 'Janta' like us have PD's before his, and are still waiting............makes me more and more dukheeeee.........
franklin
07-24 11:33 PM
I just ask - why not?
more...
immm
07-08 07:34 PM
Here is the actual video (watch the first 3 minutes):
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=412859221
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=412859221
vnsriv
10-26 03:44 PM
My lawyer is saying you need a valid reason to apply. My wife wants to visit India when i asked he said you cannot apply AP for visiting purpose, you need a valid reason to apply and a letter or wedding invitation to apply.
what shall I do?:confused:
Can you type in all your details , like category,country, etc. Is your PD Current?
what shall I do?:confused:
Can you type in all your details , like category,country, etc. Is your PD Current?
more...
sprash
03-02 05:09 PM
ok, here is the story:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/03/02/foreign_tech/
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/03/02/foreign_tech/
amsgc
06-01 07:38 PM
Instead of trying to figure out which copy/original of AP goes where, and how many originals you should/will get, understand this simple fact: If you have an approved multiple entry AP, then you will be able to enter multiple times.
Each port of entry has a diffierent way of doing things. At the end of your immigration through the POE, you will have atleast one AP travel document in your hand, which will be stamped. You can use the same document to re-enter before the expiration date (on the AP), as long as it is multiple entry.
So just relax and enjoy your travel.
When it is three copies (Nebraska has been giving three), on first travel, one copy goes to airlines, the 2nd copy goes to POE and 3rd copy remains with AP holder (the 3rd copy must be stamped at POE). On subsequent travels give a photocopy (of 3rd) to airlines, ask POE to make a copy (of 3rd) for themselves and keep 3rd (after getting subsequents stamp).
When it is two copies (Texas has been giving two), on first travel, give a photocopy to airlines the 1nd copy goes to POE and 2nd copy remains with AP holder (the 2nd copy must be stamped at POE). On subsequent travels give a photocopy (of 2nd) to airlines, ask POE to make a copy (of 2nd) for themselves and keep 2nd (after getting subsequents stamp).
Each port of entry has a diffierent way of doing things. At the end of your immigration through the POE, you will have atleast one AP travel document in your hand, which will be stamped. You can use the same document to re-enter before the expiration date (on the AP), as long as it is multiple entry.
So just relax and enjoy your travel.
When it is three copies (Nebraska has been giving three), on first travel, one copy goes to airlines, the 2nd copy goes to POE and 3rd copy remains with AP holder (the 3rd copy must be stamped at POE). On subsequent travels give a photocopy (of 3rd) to airlines, ask POE to make a copy (of 3rd) for themselves and keep 3rd (after getting subsequents stamp).
When it is two copies (Texas has been giving two), on first travel, give a photocopy to airlines the 1nd copy goes to POE and 2nd copy remains with AP holder (the 2nd copy must be stamped at POE). On subsequent travels give a photocopy (of 2nd) to airlines, ask POE to make a copy (of 2nd) for themselves and keep 2nd (after getting subsequents stamp).
more...
EndlessWait
04-18 10:08 AM
would rather go back to home country...with dollar sliding and india booming..
zico123
04-19 08:55 PM
My lawyer received my H1B approval in the mail yesterday. Online status said approved on 15th. But lawyer said that I will have to pick it up from India. Otherwise I'll have to file an amendment. I am guessing it is form I-797B (no I-94)
Anyone else in similar situation with any information?
Case:
* Regular quota (65k) Premium processing @ VSC
* Receipt date: April 9th (via email)
* Approved: April 15th (checked online status)
* Lawyer received mail approval on April 18th (US Postal Mail)
* Planning on taking Kaplan course from June - September which can be extended till Oct
Anyone else in similar situation with any information?
Case:
* Regular quota (65k) Premium processing @ VSC
* Receipt date: April 9th (via email)
* Approved: April 15th (checked online status)
* Lawyer received mail approval on April 18th (US Postal Mail)
* Planning on taking Kaplan course from June - September which can be extended till Oct
more...
MeraNoAayega
05-18 06:51 PM
This is great news. I think the lawsuit was made to coincide with the conference between USCIS and DOS with members of Congress. This is a total game changer.
Thanks to the mighty and courageous Chineese gentlemen who finally stood up!!!
Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai!!!
Good... I hope all the chinese EB3 applicants will file the intake form, then get their GC's....:)
Thanks to the mighty and courageous Chineese gentlemen who finally stood up!!!
Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai!!!
Good... I hope all the chinese EB3 applicants will file the intake form, then get their GC's....:)
jamsumfarray
11-16 07:09 AM
Hi
I was thinking of askign my lawyer to change my case from non rir to rir ?
i was wonderign if anyoenhas done it? and what are the risk factors in changing from non rir to rir?
My pd is oct2002? nothign heard after teh 45 day letter....
thanks waiting for eager response ..any oen has idea about a good lawyer please pass on the info about the lawyer too
thanks
I was thinking of askign my lawyer to change my case from non rir to rir ?
i was wonderign if anyoenhas done it? and what are the risk factors in changing from non rir to rir?
My pd is oct2002? nothign heard after teh 45 day letter....
thanks waiting for eager response ..any oen has idea about a good lawyer please pass on the info about the lawyer too
thanks
sukhwinderd
09-14 04:21 PM
Hi All,
I think a lof people have the LUD is 08/05/07 for 140 filed in TSC..and everyone takes their guesses. Please post if u r LUD for 140 is 08/05/2007 ;
what are you trying to get at ? or analyze?
what matters is when you filed.
I think a lof people have the LUD is 08/05/07 for 140 filed in TSC..and everyone takes their guesses. Please post if u r LUD for 140 is 08/05/2007 ;
what are you trying to get at ? or analyze?
what matters is when you filed.
kumar1
07-18 01:39 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not use abusive language. - Administrator2
Please do not use abusive language. - Administrator2
bkarnik
11-09 05:11 PM
Your Approval Notice is sent to the attorny not to you.If the current one you have is original one from attorney then your wife has to out of country immediately and enter with I94 ...Please note I94 is the one that determines you status in this country...
USCIS sends out three copies of the approval notice Form I797 A: Sent to the attorney on record, Form I797 B sent to the Petitioner and Form I797C sent to the beneficiary. Check the lower right hand corner of the notice you received for the form number. The B and C versions are courtesy copies. That is why if you look at the "documents needed" section for stamping of H1B in any of the Consulates or VFS sites they typically mention "original Form I797A"
Hope this helps.
USCIS sends out three copies of the approval notice Form I797 A: Sent to the attorney on record, Form I797 B sent to the Petitioner and Form I797C sent to the beneficiary. Check the lower right hand corner of the notice you received for the form number. The B and C versions are courtesy copies. That is why if you look at the "documents needed" section for stamping of H1B in any of the Consulates or VFS sites they typically mention "original Form I797A"
Hope this helps.
0 comments:
Post a Comment