Hathaway

I hope AILA pushes through with lawsuits against DOS and USCIS. And wins. If for no other reason than DOS's gross irresponsibility with regards to releasing the July Visa bulletin. They have no new evidence to support revising their announcement aside from their own incompetence. July visa demand coming from the USCIS hasn't event started yet. That means all the info they needed to come up with that same bulletin has been the same information they had on their desks since mid-June. The reason why potential applicants to this whole expensive process consults the visa bulletin is that it is supposed to the the final word on visa availablity for the coming month. What DOS is doing is essentially like selling plane tickets and then cancelling the flight when people are at the gate. Even airlines are obligated to shoulder whatever consequences their actions may have caused. There was and is no reason why DOS's visa bulletin released during its time should be doubted with regards to its reliability or credibility. If one cannot trust the visa bulletin, then the whole visa allocation process in the US immigration system has shifted from a policy of fairness and transparency in process into one entirely undeserving of respect or understanding. And the disturbing thing is, DOS is doing this flagrantly without regard for fairness in its actions. Its like, "So? Sue us. If you win, good! Maybe the immigration judge will order us to somehow fix whatever consequences our bulletin may have caused..Then and only then will we even consider rethinking what we did. But, you HAVE to sue us first!"... Now, there is something seriously wrong with any govt agency that thinks in these terms. And this particular line of thinking is not entirely without precedent. There have been many instances in the past where USCIS has been sued and has subsequently lost when brought to court to defend how they apply US immigration law. AILA has already announced plans to file suit. If USCIS and DOS lose, they deserve it.

Yeah, ur lucky man. That and considering you've already passed the 10 business day posting requirement and 30 day waiting period after that before any I140 can be started..(the part required for Schedule A labor certification)?

i got this off murthy.com newsflash! dos expected to revise july visa bulletin[color=#808080]posted jun 29, 2007[color=#ffffff]©murthydotcom we have received news from the american immigration lawyers association (aila) that they have reliable information that the july visa bulletin will be revised on monday, july 2nd, or tuesday, july 3rd. this visa bulletin is expected to retrogress many of the categories that were announced as being "current" for july. it is expected that at least some of the categories will become completely "unavailable." the reason for this is that the uscis apparently engaged in extraordinary efforts to approve cases in june, once there was some forward movement of the visa . post edited to conform to us copyright law. you can go to the website listed above to see the full article that has been posted.

Hmmm.. At this point, it seems to me that the Dept of State and USCIS are risking mass action lawsuits.. there's an article released by AILA at Shusterman's website (AILA vs. USCIS) dealing with the last time the DOS and USCIS went outside of regulations by refusing the "Other Workers" category visa even if the visa bulletin pertaining to the applicable month was "current". If one reads the article, AILA has cited multiple regulations and laws clearly showing why DOS and USCIS applied the law erroneously in that situation. I think it is a violation of federal regulations to amend the revised visa bulletin DURING or AFTER the start of the applicable month. What I am sure of is that the visa bulletin released the preceding month is the reference point as to whether a visa is "Immediately available" so as to allow for I485 Processing. During that "Other workers" visa category runout situation, DOS simply did not allow USCIS to receive any more 485's, even if they were bound by law to keep the category current due to the already released bulletin. Previously, (and correctly) they should have received what was submitted in the said month, and applied retrogression in the next month. What happened was the announcement from DOS to USCIS came in the form of an "Internal Memo" that was not publicly released! The applicants only found out that CIS was not accepting anymore 485's because those were being sent back! There was no announcement! Now, DOS is trying to fix its mistake but its not doing enough to keep them away from immigration court, i think. The revised bulletin (if there is one) will be coming out after the applicable month has started. Hospitals have already laid out money to lawyers, there's posting, theres the medical exam, etc... It's like DOS is trying to take back what came out of its official mouth 2 weeks ago. Tough to do considering their announcement was the official guideline for when to start the legal process. Anyhow, at the very least, what DOS is allegedly about to do is a gross irresponsibility and an abuse in the exercise of prerogative. They cant even reason out that the visa numbers ran out because they're already talking about eating their own words even BEFORE they've started to accept new applications. The door isn't even open yet and they're talking "oh, the house is full."..if somebody miscalculated just how much they have in terms of pipeline cases, then they deserve to be sued.

Regarding that, this is the AILA announcement released today... Friday, June 29, 2007 July 2007 Visa Bulletin to be revised? Please be advised that AILA, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, has just released the following announcement. "We are hearing from multiple sources that, on Monday or Tuesday of next week, State Department plans to issue a revised Visa Bulletin for July 2007. This revised Bulletin would retrogress some or all of the employment-based categories, very likely to the point of unavailable. Reports from AILA members about unusual levels and types of activities by USCIS indicate a particular push to adjudicate employment-based adjustments currently in the pipeline so as to exhaust visa numbers for fiscal year 2007. This follows the actions of USCIS in June, when it began rejecting EB-3 "Other Worker" adjustment applications even though the Visa Bulletin showed an October 2001 cut-off date, on the basis that the "Other Worker" numbers for the year had been exhausted.” If this is accurate, Adjustment of Status cases (I-485 cases) filed in July will all be rejected and returned to us and no AOS (I-485 cases) could be filed in July. It would also effectively cancel all Immigrant Visa appointments at US Consulates. We will provide further updates as they become available.

Looks like things look dim for the CIR. This just happened today as of this post. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/washington/07cnd-immig.html?ref=us Reid's gonna try to do cloture again tonight. If the senate wont go for it again, he just might abandon CIR.

That's interesting K_cole. I just talked to the Nurse Recruiter at Swedish last week. Her initials were J.T. She said they never did that, they dont do that, and probably never will.

Thank you suzanne. Let me fix that.. Does anyone know any California or Washington state hospitals that routinely consider doing petitions for immigrant nurses? I know the visa legislation isn't in place yet (retrogression), but i'd like to have a working list of HR places that i'd like to start talking with.. Thanks in advance to all who reply.. Hathaway

Does anyone know any California or Washington state hospitals that routinely consider doing sponsorships for immigrant nurses? I know the legislation isn't in place yet, but i'd like to have a working list of HR places that i'd like to start talking with.. Thanks in advance to all who reply.. Hathaway

Suzanne, I couldn't find the announcement for its implementation on the uscis website. Can you post the link please? Last thing I found over there when i searched for "fee raises" was the proposal to raise announcement released last feb. And I thought this thing was still under congressional review. Dont they need congress's "go ahead" to implement the new fee schedule?

The issue is about comparability. I suggest you read CGFNS's statement regarding the circumstances surrounding that decision. True, a local license is not needed for the VSC.. But the existence of Phil. licensure here is not being viewed as a prerequisite for immigration purposes. However, if local licensure DOES exist, there is the necessary prerequisite that such license must be unencumbered. (Not revoked, suspended, etc...). This is in the interest of screening nurses who are "moving" their practice in order to get away from any encumbrances in their license. (A person who was never licensed has no license to encumber). Since comparability in the process of licensure in the US and the Phils cannot be established, it was therefore CG's decision to deny the VSC until the challenged part of the exam was replaced with something comparable to the US manner of obtaining the license.

It's interesting how my post becomes misconstrued to mean anything against the US immigration policy or US nurses in general. If you'd take the time to read that thing over...I said "these US nurses are right." I'd never been in doubt about whether US immigration policy was correct in handling immigration for nurses. And yes, if it was our backyard, we'd probably go about it in similar fashion following similar principles too. However, my point is, I feel sad for the Phil RNs. I know so many of them who've left for the US. And even more who want to. They say they're lucky they're already in the system and will eventually get there. These are the same people who, when they get there, feel indescribably hurt for having left behind everything they've known in life. Friends. Family. They go there because difficult economic conditions here force them to. And yes, maybe it's fortunate that their working there is mutually beneficial to the US and the immigrant nurse. But when was it ever absolutely acceptable to say, "Man, you're lucky, you got a job offer. Now you gotta leave everything behind and start your life over from scratch."? There is great benefit for these Phil RN's who have this opportunity, no doubt about that. However, the sacrifice may very well be just as great, only it is not measurable in terms of money. Timothy, you said just doesn't understand my perspective on this. Maybe it's because you havent had to think about giving up all you've known in your life. Pack your bags, go to someplace you've only seen on tv. Yeah, you can choose not to accept this "gift". But your family needs you to go, so you go. I hope by now you see why I'm sad at times. I have so many friends in the US, nurses. They all left their lives to help their families. And they talk to me when they miss home. Hathaway

Have a safe and enjoyable vacation suzanne... You deserve it.

Regarding post #31, we never mentioned a letter in the scenario Suzanne. And of course, were such a letter submitted to ICHP prior to licensure in the Phils, that would be pretty solid grounds for revocation based on fraud (if licensure in the Phils was eventually sought after the issuance of the VSC). However, my question is, what is your view regarding this case if Phil. licensure was never sought after passge of the NLE? Licensure never existed. There is no issue of comparability since there is no Phil. license to compare to. In your view, can fraud be proven beyond doubt if Phil. licensure is never pursued? (See, in this case, even with the existence of the aforementioned letter, the applicant would in fact be telling the truth.) :)

Whenever i read posts like these, especially those from RN's in the Phils, I can't help feeling a twinge of sadness. Sad because these US nurses are right. Phil. RN's have NO RIGHT to be indignant. NO RIGHT to expect anything except that which the US deems to be its "leftovers from the table". (Ever wonder why USCIS requires any US job offered to aliens to undergo a time period wherein it is offered first to US citizens? And only after this time period will they certify that there indeed exists a need for this particular position that NO AMERICAN (on not enough of them at least) IS WILLING TO TAKE ON? And these Phil RN's are even expected to regard these scraps as "gifts". Phil. RN's have NO RIGHT to have a say about immigration issues. Issues that will affect them squarely head-on for sure, but this in and of itself does not entitle one to have a say about what will be done with his own person in the US legal immigration system. (Ironic isnt it?) US interests must come first. And this system applies to all aliens regardless of who they are, lest Phil. RN's think they are being singled out. Like I said, I am saddened at how Phil. RN's are reduced to giving up so much of their rights, their dignity, their pride. It wasn't their fault that they lived in an economy wherein the practice of their profession would be insufficient for subsistence. But it isn't the US's fault either. I can't help feeling pity for the Phil. RN willing to leave friends, family, home and all he ever knew in his life, sacrificing so much just to try to carve a more decent way of life for his loved ones. And it stings whenever thinly veiled insinuations are made that these people go over to the US to "take something away" from the US. I am of the persuasion that majority have gone over and have become assets rather than liablities to the US economy. Hathaway

Hmmm.. Nice twist lawrence. :) Well, CGFNS' grounds for inadmissibilty of those 2006 passers' licenses was based on the issue of "comparability". If I get this right (and please feel free to correct me if I'm not), CGFNS was pursuing this line of reasoning as basis for their views regarding the process of obtaining the nurse license because this way, it would be more objective. The facts and events surrounding the eventual procurement of the license for the Phil. nurses involved in that unfortunate NLE cannot be disputed and are as plain as day for everyone to see. That way, comparability could easily be verified when this aforesaid process is held alongside and compared to the US manner of obtaining the license. Fraud, on the other hand, is so much harder to prove. Any judgment from CGFNS based on fraud would have to be based on solid, airtight (indisputable) facts. As we all know, it would be grossly unfair to lump all of the June 2006 licensees in the same boat just because there is simply no way to separate the dishonest from the truly deserving. However, this does not, of course, allow CGFNS to divest itself of its mandate to protect the American public..and herein lies the crux of the dilemma CG must resolve were it to adjudicate a case just like the one we'd been discussing, Lawrence. You see, fraud involves trickery, mischief, dishonesty and/or deceit done in order to achieve ends that the applicant never truly deserved. In order to establish this, CG must objectively prove that this was, indeed the applicant's primary interest in applying for that VSC while he/she was not licensed in the Phils. Furthermore, that there could be no other possible reason why the applicant did not apply for licensure or why he did not qualify for licensure even after passsing the NLE, apart from fraudulent intent. To address that particular twist you added, I think the applicant just did himself a disservice by obtaining licensure in the Phils. I believe CG would then have every right to exert its discretion to revoke that VSC but NOT BECAUSE OF FRAUD, for even then that would be hard to prove. (Like I said, that can only be done through exclusion of all other possible reasons for late licensure, which are numerous if you use your imagination. And CG would be hard pressed to go down and investigate each one of those avenues). This revocation would be based solely on a preceding policy statement that the VSC would simply be refused any JUNE 2006 passer/licensee who did not retake and pass tests 3 and 5. Of course, the suspicion of fraud would hang heavily over that applicant's case, but that would be of zero weight with regards to affecting the determination of this case. What do you think?

Good point Lawrence. However, id like to point out that "technicalities", especially in legal circles, wins hands down over "tradition". One is a clear cut objective reality. The other is wild assumption based on stereotyped prejudice. One simply cannot presume anything if information is not volunteered, or required. And oh, while I do agree that ICHP has reserved the discretionary right to revoke/recall any VSC issued, this judgment will have to be based on objective proof that there was, indeed, intent to mislead, cheat, or otherwise defraud ICHP. To apply this argument to your previous example, the applicant in question would, in fact, be committing fraud if he did declare he was issued a license in items 15 and 16 of the VSC form. Also, it would be very prejudicial for ICHP to assume that the applicant was not licensed after passage of the NLE because he wanted to avoid the whole June 2006 mess. While that would merit strong suspicion, granted, suspicion alone never held enough water to win a court battle. Finally, I agree with your point about the employer's side. (This is from an ethical, common sense perspective). It's kinda fun playing the devil's advocate... hehehe Hathaway

Yup, But it sure doesn't hurt to try for perfection. "Impossible" is nothing...

HuH? The thread was started with the English-exemption, not the immigration news. Anyhow, here's my take on the original issue. NEVER. Hathaway.

Lawrence, Just something i'd like you to look and and hopefully clear up... Few posts ago you stated that if one ever took the NLE, he'd have to pass it to qualify for the VSC. Hmmm.. Are we to understand that if one failed the exam, they necessarily are not qualified for the VSC? Im looking at the VSC 2007 application form. Items 15 and 16 are the only items dealing with Registration/Licensing and Nursing Exams taken. Item 15 only asks if one has ever been issued a License. (Not whether one has ever taken an exam as part of the requirement for an eventual license). The Request for Registration/License is only needed if one was ever issued one by any licensing authority anywhere. Item 16 does ask if the applicant has sat for nursing exams. But it specifically asks only if it applies to the CGFNS CP, NCLEX-RN, NCLEX-PN or the SBTPE exams. It doesnt have a box for "others". Anyhow, while I do agree that fraud or anything of that sort would be totally unacceptable on the VSC application form, I dont think the applicant can be held "responsible" for nondisclosure of information that was not specifically requested for by the form. That would be plain wrong. (The applicant is not required to volunteer information that is not asked of him. Especially in this case wherein all written information is attested to and signed by the applicant.) Kindly look that one over please and I'd like your comments too... Thanks in advance for the input, Hathaway.

Great mtjmnov. Words of advice: Get a flight few days before your actual test date to allow for unforeseen circumstances. (The plane broke down, you got lost, you missed the plane, it got delayed, etc.) If you can arrive at HK airport during the day, best arrangement is if your hotel will pick you up. Or if you got friends or family to do it, thats even better. Barring that, its much cheaper to take the Airport express MTR. (60 dollars the whole way if taking it and transferring at the next nearest "regular" MTR line which is the TSING YI station. 100 if taking it all the way to HK station at HK island with no stops. Oh, Im assuming you still wanna stay at the ramada) Cabs will cost about 300 to 400 dollars one way to HK island. The MTR doesnt work past midnight. And one of the cheaper airlines from the phils has a flight that will land at HK past midnight...so take this into consideration.

1. Omnipotence 2. Omniscience 3. Omnipresence :)

I read in US newspaper editorial opinion somewhere that there was some suspicion at DC whether these raids were done deliberately for a specific purpose...(politically motivated). Especially since Bush is doing behind the scenes negitiations with key GOP people. After all, his admin can just claim they're only enforcing the law, and what's wrong with that? Anyhow, the way these big raids break up families and leave small children at home with nobody to care for them, it kinda shows in a microcosm what would happen (on a much grander scale) if last year's hardline GOP plan to round up and deport the 12 million illegals in the US. Come to think of it, if they do this often enough to cause sufficient outrage at the damage done to these numerous broken families as well as the burden on the social welfare system (the primary breadwinner gets detained and sent out), it just might be enough to get CIR done somehow.

That kinda depends on how far you're willing to walk. It's about 40 mins to an hour presuming you dont get lost and how fast you go. Just follow the tram rail running through the middle of the street in front of the hotel. I walked to the testing site from ramada 4 times. (2 round trips). I needed the exercise. There's a tram stop right in front of the ramada that will take you to within 30 seconds' walking distance from the nearest tram stop at the grand millennium plaza. The cost is 2 dollars. You won't get lost with the tram. It only runs in a straight line and doesn't branch off. Worst scenario with the tram is if you take one that stops short of the place...in which case you'll walk a few blocks..maybe 5 minutes worth of legwork. You can take a cab. Cost you probably 40 HK dollars from the hotel. If you're gonna stay in a hotel further away, (and probably cheaper), make sure it's near the mtr. There's an MTR stop called the SHEUNG WAN station on the ISLAND LINE of the MTR. Get off there and climb up the stairs of exit E2. This exit sits DIRECTLY in front of the Grand Millenium Plaza. Just cross the street and you're there. So a hotel near the center isn't really a necessity unless you want to make walking there as a backup plan in case all else fails. Hathaway.

3/24/2007 US House Just started on their Comprehensive Immigration bill entitled STRIVE ACT of 2007. (HR 1645) It's a massive immigration overhaul. Specifically for nurses, it provides unlimited immigrant visas for them and their dependents until Sept. 30, 2017. Long list of other changes affecting all countries, classes of visas and lines of work. Check out hammondlawfirm.com and shusterman.com for more details. The whole thing is over 600 pages long. Best not to raise your hopes up too much though. Last 4 bills and amendments in US Senate stalled and went nowhere.. Just keep on prayin. Hathaway