ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

Chinese Immig. Daily

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily

 

Chinese Immig. Daily



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free
information!

Copyright
©1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.


Immigration Daily December 13, 2004
Previous Issues
The unmatched news resource for legal professionals. Free! Join 15,000+ readers


Comment

Contradiction In DOL's TG Memo And The Implications Thereof

DOL's TG Memo contains a contradiction. In Attachment 1 to the TG, DOL says "ETA believes the national processing of backlogged permanent labor certification cases using the first-in, first-out (FIFO) principle, regardless of the location where a case was originally filed, is an equitable and fair approach to all applicants." Attachment 1 then goes on to describe how backlogged labor cert applications at Regional Offices and SWAs will be processed in the Backlog Centers in Dallas and Philadelphia. However, on page 3 of the TG, DOL says "SWAs shall continue to "accept" but not "open" cases filed by employers after January 1, 2005, and forward these to either Atlanta or Chicago on a schedule ETA will provide to the SWAs." If the latter sentence implies that these 2005 cases will then be processed in Atlanta and Chicago, then that would obviously not be following the FIFO principle, since Dallas and Philadelphia would be processing 2001 cases at the same time. On the other hand if DOL intends to apply the FIFO principle, the staff in Atlanta and Chicago would not be processing any files that the TG says will be sent to them by the SWAs. A logical way to resolve this contradiction would be if DOL intends to ship files to and fro between Atlanta/Chicago on the one hand, and Dallas/Philadelphia on the other (which would be a strange way for DOL to plan things).

What this really shows is that the DOL had not thought through how 2005 files would be handled at the time of issuing the TG on Sep 29, 2004. Again, the logical reason for this to be so is that at least as of Sep 29, 2004, DOL was counting on PERM to be published before 12/31/2004. If that was true, and it is logical to believe that it was, PERM must be considered to be imminent at this point. On Dec 3, 2004, DOL issued instructions to the SWAs to ship cases to the Backlog Centers. This document, while free from any obvious contradictions, presents problems of its own, which SWAs will have to struggle through - and which will affect attorneys with cases pending at the SWAs. This new Carlson memo will be among the topics of discussion at the 12/16 phone session of "PERM Softly Creeping: Backlog Reduction, Regional Processing And Other Troubling Sounds Of Silence", the discussion here will be led by distinguished immigration practitioner Angelo Paparelli. The detailed curriculum appears in the Focus below. The deadline to sign up for this timely and informative phone seminar is Tuesday, December 14th. For more info, detailed curriculum, speaker bios, and registration information, see: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/december2004.shtm.

We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to editor@ilw.com.


Focus

Detailed Curriculum For Labor Cert Seminar On 12/16

The curriculum for the 12/16 session is as follows:

  • Keep on Truckin: Update on the SWAs’ Planning and Logistics in Shipping Unprocessed Labor Certification Applications to the Backlog Reduction Centers;
  • Wagons Ho! -- What does 12/3/04 Carlson Memo Reveal about Backlog Reduction, National Processing and the New World of Labor Certifications?
  • Are Your Clients Properly Coiffed? -- Get Them Ready to be PERMed.
    • Hard and Soft Recruitment;
    • Employer and Employee Conflicts of Interest;
    • Addressing the challenges of Priority Date Retrogression;
    • PERM Upgrade Strategies;
    • DOL Anti-Fraud Enforcement Planning.
  • Money, Money, Money: Prevailing Wage Changes under the Omnibus Appropriations Bill.
    • No More "Cut Me Some Slack": Say goodbye to the 95% Rule.
    • Stairway to Heaven: No more two-steps – we’re four-stepping now!
Because PERM rules could be published at any time, however, the program agenda and the content of the sessions will be adjusted to accommodate an in-depth analysis of the final PERM rule as soon as the PERM rule is published. Detailed agenda will be adjusted as necessary.

The deadline to sign up is Tuesday, December 14th. For more info, detailed curriculum, speaker bios, and registration information, see: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/december2004.shtm. (Fax version: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/december2004.pdf.)


Article

Asylum Resource Series: Cameroon
USCIS Asylum Resource Information Center offers asylum information on Cameroon.


Keep on top of the latest in immigration law! Attend ILW.COM seminars! You can attend ILW.COM phone seminars from the convenience of your office! For more info on the seminars currently available, please click here: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/

News

Text Of 9/11 Intelligence Bill
We present the Conference Report on S. 2845, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

Conference Committee Joint Explanatory Statement On 9/11 Intelligence Bill
The Conference Committee released its joint explanatory statement on the 9/11 Intelligence Bill.


Attorney listings on ILW.COM are searched 200,000 times/year! Each attorney listed is searched an average of once each day! Just one new client will pay for the entire year's fee! Click here for more info: http://www.ilw.com/membership/

Classifieds

Help Wanted: Immigration Attorney
Anthony Olson, P.A., an immigration law firm in Sarasota, FL, specializing in employment- and family-based immigration law seeks experienced immigration attorney. Preferably 2+ years of experience in employment-based immigration, particularly with labor certs, EB-1, E, H, L, O, P visas. Foreign language skills preferred, especially Spanish or German. Friendly and flexible working conditions with a competitive benefits package. Applicants must be conscientious, self-reliant, detail-oriented, and well-organized. Salary is commensurate with experience. Submit resume to Tony by fax at 941-362-7107 or by email to tony@immigrationvisausa.com.

Help Wanted: Immigration Attorney
Ronald W. Freeman, P.C. is an employment-based immigration law firm located in downtown New York City with a diverse corporate client base, including numerous Japanese companies. We are looking for an experienced business immigration attorney to join our team. Must have experience in nonimmigrant business visas and other business-related immigration matters. Strong communication (written & verbal) and case management skills required. Japanese fluency preferred. Email resume & salary requirements in confidence to jobposting@rwfpc.com.

Help Wanted: Immigration Attorney
Tired of the cold? Why not join us in sunny Arizona, 20 minutes from downtown Phoenix? Employment-based firm with Fortune 500 clientele seeks a full-time lawyer to join our team. Must have at least two years employment immigration experience, excellent research and writing skills, and an exceptional client service approach. Experience with J-1 waiver/NIW physician cases a plus. Excellent salary and benefits including health, dental, vision, long and short term disability, retirement benefits, and paid AILA conferences. Arizona offers year-round hiking, camping, boating, professional sports and the Grand Canyon. Email cover letter with resume + salary requirements to Theresa M. Talbert: ttalbert@breljelaw.com.

We carry advertisements for Help Wanted: Attorney, Help Wanted: Paralegal, Help Wanted: Other, Positions Sought, Products & Services Offered, etc.
For information on advertising in the classifieds please click here

For services/products of use in your law practice please click here


Letters

Readers are welcome to share their comments, email: editor@ilw.com (300-words or fewer preferred).

Dear Editor:
In its 12/10/04 comment, Immigration Daily sees the Republicans "being out of step" with their colleagues as a bad sign. Did you ever consider that they, being in the actual committees, could be more "in step" with the real facts behind the bill?

Brad William

Dear Editor:
In response to Immigration Daily's (ID) 12/10/04 comment, can't you liberals just accept that you are no longer in power? Liberalism is a modern day irrelevance.

Steve Carman

Dear Editor:
I can understand the frustration of Immigration Daily with the Republican committee members who voted against the so-called "Intelligence Bill (see ID comment on 12/10/04). We "restrictionists" have been frustrated for years with politicians who refuse to address the immigration mess in this country. I wonder if Immigration Daily would be so incensed about the imbalance if the members had voted in accordance with the beliefs of ILW.COM? I notice you also failed to mention the fact that many members of Congress stated that they felt like they had to vote for the bill but would support more enforcement of the immigration laws if it comes to a vote as promised. The committees may indeed be ..."far out of step with the sentiment of their colleagues in the House", but they are very much in step with the wishes of a large majority of Americans, as poll after poll has shown.

John H. Frecker
Baileyville, ME

Dear Editor:
I was reading the last exchange between Aimee (ID 12/10/04) and "Name Withheld" (ID 12/09/04) which really does not add much to the debate except exchanging a few barbs. Why is it that the two sides cannot see that there is merit in the other's contention? I do not believe anybody argues that the US should have a totally open-border policy, if anything else because of the sheer number of immigrants that would amass at the borders. At the same time, I fail to see how a totally closed-border policy, typical of much closer and far less prosperous societies such as the former Soviet Union, can benefit a modern country with an advanced economy such as the US competition seems to have two schizophrenic lives: why is it good to have "free", or intelligently regulated, movement of goods across the border or intelligently regulated movement of workers across the border willing to provide competitive labor to help the struggling economy and the soon-to-be-bankrupt social security system? Wasn't this what actually the founding fathers envisioned for a more perfect Union? And why shouldn't we aim to extend the concept to a global economy as best as we can? The truth is, we are not ready yet to embrace the ultimate consequences of a truly global society, so I am not advocating anything rash, but shouldn't the debate focus on the best ways to achieve a balanced approach rather than polarizing the two camps on opposite sides, with no hope of reconciling their differences? I thought the US was a democracy in that people are allowed to have different opinions, voice them, but most importantly find a mechanism to reconcile them and go about the business of improving the lives of those around us, and our own.

Giuseppe (Joe) Scagliarini, Esq.

Dear Editor:
Your pdf version of the Enrolled Version of the Conrad 30 Bill featured in the 12/10 issue of ID apparently chopped off some of the language towards the end of the first page.

Vance Winningham

Editor's Note: This is the Enrolled Version of the Conrad 30 Bill currently available.

Dear Editor:
Once again, I object to Immigration Daily publishing opinion letters with "Name Withheld" at the bottom (ID 12/09/04), and add yet one more plea to make Immigration Daily letters to the Editor more transparent, and therefore more credible. In Immigration Daily's December 10th issue, I am comforted to find another voice crying in the wilderness, in the form of Aimee Clark Todd who states, "Name Withheld's" letter does not intelligently address the debate. And maybe Name Withheld could also show confidence in his/her own opinion by including his/her name." And that's the problem - no recognition, no accountability - a license to write any nonsense they want. While some Immigration Daily letters to the Editor contributors may chose to use pseudonyms, like "Lone Ranger", or "SGS", or incomplete names, like "Chucky", at least when they enter into opinion discussions in the Immigration Daily forum, they can be easily identified by their moniker of choice, allowing interested readers to know what to expect from them, and their opinions, enabling context over the long term. I believe every contributor of opinions, no matter what the forum for expression, should be bold enough, and confident enough, to identify themselves. That's the American way, versus the way of the Klan. Of course, during the "McCarthy era" of the 1950's, some people in the US were persecuted for their opinions, but that was a long time ago - or was it? I am proud of my opinions - protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution - they have been formed by over six decades of experience and learning. And I am proud to state my opinions under, or over, the banner of my name.

David D. Murray, Esq.
Newport Beach, CA


comingsNgoings

Readers can share their professional announcements (100-words or less at no charge), email: editor@ilw.com.

New Appointment
Thomas Esparza, Jr., Board Certified Specialist in Immigration and Nationality Law of Austin, Texas has been elected to the Chair of the Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Licensed in 1977, Thomas along with Adan Vega of Houston were the first Hispanics in Texas to become Board Certified Specialists in Immigration Law in Texas.


An Important disclaimer! The information provided on this page is not legal advice. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt by you does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Readers must not act upon any information without first seeking advice from a qualified attorney. Copyright 1999-2005 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM. Send correspondence and articles to editor@ilw.com. Letters and articles may be edited and may be published and otherwise used in any medium. The views expressed in letters and articles do not necessarily represent the views of ILW.COM or members of the Immigration Daily Advisory Board. The opinions expressed in the Comment section are those of ILW.COM and Immigration Daily and do not necessarily represent the views of the members of the Immigration Daily Advisory Board.

Publisher:  Sam Udani    Legal Editor:  Michele Kim

Advisory Board:   Marc Ellis, Gary Endelman


Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: