|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| FREE NEWSLETTER | |
|
Published by the Law Offices of Carl Shusterman, 600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1550, Los Angeles, California, 90017. Phone: (213)623-4592, Fax: (213) 623-3720, E-Mail: carl@shusterman.com, WWW Home Page: http://www.shusterman.com
To subscribe to SHUSTERMAN'S IMMIGRATION UPDATE, fill out the brief online form at http://www.shusterman.com/subscribe.html#subscribe or send an e-mail message to majordomo@ls.shusterman.com, with the words "subscribe visalaw" in the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, fill in your e-mail address at http://www.shusterman.com/subscribe.html#unsubscribe or send an e-mail message to majordomo@ls.shusterman.com, with the words "unsubscribe visalaw" in the body of the message.
For back issues of SHUSTERMAN'S IMMIGRATION UPDATE, see
Disclaimer: This newsletter is not intended to establish an attorney-client relationship. All information contained in this newsletter is generalized. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.
1. April 2001 State Department Visa Bulletin
2. Latest INS/State Dept/Labor Dept Processing Times
3. LIFE Amendments: Section 245(I) Made Simple
4. Nurses: Congress Ready To Confront National Nurse Shortage?
5. Immigration Trivia Quiz: Mr. Gibbons' Little Statuette
6. New Chairman of Immigration Subcommittee: Senator Brownback
7. Web Site: CRLA's http://www.stopgatekeeper.org
8. Physicians: J Waiver Based On Exceptional Hardship
9. Chat Schedule, Transcripts, LegalElite Discussions & Audios
10. Answers To February's Immigration Trivia Quiz
scroll down to "General" and click on "Kevin D. Rooney Appointed As Acting INS Commissioner".
scroll down to "Revocation of Naturalization" and click on "Appeals Court, In En Banc Decision, Rules That Attorney General Lack Authority To Revoke Naturalization (7-20-00)".
and scroll down to "State Department" and click on "2000 State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (February 2001)". We also have links to the 1999 and 1998 reports.
and scroll down to "INS Policy And Procedural Memoranda".
and scroll down to "Temporary Protected Status" and click on "INS News Release On Salvadoran TPS (3-2-01)" and "INS Q & A On Salvadoran TPS (3-2-01)".
and scroll down to "General" and click on "White House On Immigration: Reform The Immigration System (February 2001)".
The Family categories were dead on arrival. The worldwide FB numbers for the 1st, 2A, 2B and 3rd categories all failed to advance. The same with the F4 category for persons born in India. The worldwide F4 number and the FB numbers from Mexico and the Philippines are currently unavailable. They will be posted on our web site soon.
On the Employment side, there was another strong advance for the Indian numbers. The EB-2 category advanced 3 1/2 months while the beleaguered EB-3 category jumped ahead 5 months. While the PRC numbers are not currently available, we suspect that the China EB-2 and EB-3 numbers will also advance by a few months each. We will post the complete April 2001 Visa Bulletin online as soon as it's available.
With the exception of unskilled workers, all worldwide EB numbers remain current (no backlog).
The priority date for unskilled workers (Congratulations to nannies!) advanced 5 1/2 months to October 1, 1997! Time to file those labor certifications under §245(I) - See Topic #3 below!
The April 2001 Visa Numbers can be found at
For an explanation of what the categories, dates and symbols listed below mean, see
and
Check the State Department's official version to see complete information about the movement of family, employment and lottery numbers, at
Our web site contains the waiting times of each center and enumerates each state served by the center and any foreign offices within the center's jurisdiction.
The service centers periodically issue lists of their processing times for various types of applications. Our web site contains the latest list issued by each service center.
Warning: Processing times may appear faster on the official lists than they are in reality.
To see how fast (or slow) your service center is processing a particular type of petition or application, see
Processing times at INS District Offices may be accessed at
See
to check the latest processing times and policies of your Department of Labor Regional Office and your State Employment Service Agency.
We list selected Consular Post Processing Times at
To make §245(I) as simple as possible, here are some of the questions that I have been asked over and over again:
* Who qualifies for the new §245(I)?
Persons who were present in the U.S. on December 21, 2000, and whose relatives or employers apply for permanent residence for them by April 30, 2001.
* Who does the law benefit, people who are legal or illegal?
The law primarily benefits people who are illegal, and who are unable to adjust status because: (1) they entered the U.S. illegally; (2) they overstayed their authorized period of stay; or (3) they violated their legal status.
However, since the economy appears to be entering an uncertain period in which many people with temporary employment visas (e.g., H-1B, L-1, E-1, E-2, R-1, O-1, P-1, etc.) may lose their jobs, persons in legal status may wish to take out an "insurance policy" by establishing eligibility under §245(I) by April 30. That way, if they become illegal in the future, they will still be able to adjust their status in the U.S.
* What relatives are qualified to petition for me?
Your permanent resident spouse may apply for you. So may your permanent resident parents, but only if you are single, divorced or widowed. Your U.S. citizen spouse, parents, adult sons and daughters or adult brothers and sisters may also apply for you.
* What employers may apply for me?
Present or prospective employers may apply for a "labor certification" on your behalf if they can not find a "U.S. worker" for the job which they are offering you. You must have the education and/or experience required for the job. In general, the experience that you gained working for your present employer does not count unless another employer is submitting a labor certification on your behalf.
* Does the submission of a visa petition or labor certification by April 30, 2001 protect me from deportation, allow me to get a work card, or make me legal in the U.S.?
No. §245(I) is not an amnesty. It may not help you NOW, but it may help you legalize your immigration status in the FUTURE.
* How far in the future will §245(I) help me?
The U.S. immigration system is essentially a quota system. Over 3.7 million people are currently "waiting in line" to become permanent residents. How long you must wait to apply for a green card (and a work card) depends on which category you are in. To see the various waiting times, click on
* When do I pay the $1,000 fine to INS?
When you submit your application for adjustment of status.
* If I become eligible for §245(I), what about my spouse and children?
They will also qualify. And they will continue to qualify even if you and your spouse divorce, or if your children become adults and get married.
* Can I switch from one category to a faster one after April 30, 2001?
Yes. If the only way you have to qualify for eligibility under §245(I) is a U.S. citizen brother, he should immediately submit a visa petition on your behalf. The waiting time for a sibling petition is over 10 years. However, if your employer sponsors you or your spouse after April 30th, you can substantially reduce your waiting time. The same result applies if you win the visa lottery.
* Will §245(I) help me to adjust my status to permanent residence if I have committed a serious crime, immigration fraud or am subject to the two-year home residency requirement?
These are all grounds of inadmissibility. You may be able to obtain waivers of inadmissibility or you may not. However, §245(I) will NOT provide you with a waiver of inadmissibility.
* When does my eligibility for §245(I) expire?
Never
So now that you understand §245(I) a little better (or are you totally confused?), you must act before April 30, 2001 to obtain eligibility. If you would like us to help you apply with the INS or the Labor Department, don't write or call us. Simply follow the instructions at
Congress allowed the Immigration Nursing Relief Act to expire in 1995. The next year, it passed the infamous §343 which made it even more difficult for U.S. employers to obtain the services of foreign-born health care professionals. In 1999, Congress passed the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act (NRDAA) which, with its annual quota of 500 nurses, is somewhat farcical in nature. So far, not a single nurse has obtained an H-1C visa under NRDAA!
Health care providers are currently forced to recruit abroad, complete the necessary petitions, and then wait 18-24 months for the nurses to enter the U.S. for employment. One major U.S. medical center recently recruited over 300 nurses in the Philippines. Other health care providers are recruiting nurses from Canada, Ireland, Great Britain, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
The existence of a national shortage of nurses is beyond dispute.
For three days last September, the Chicago Tribune published a series of chilling articles about how the shortage of nurses was responsible for errors which led to unnecessary patient deaths and injuries:
"Nursing Mistakes Kill, Injure Thousands" (September 10, 2000)
"Nursing Accidents Unleash Silent Killer" (September 11, 2000)
"Problem Nurses Escape Punishment" (September 12, 2000)
On January 31, 2001, the Online Journal of Issues in Nursing published an article entitled "THE NURSING SHORTAGE: Solutions for the Short and Long Term". The authors state that "past economic solutions such as sign-on bonuses, relocation coverage, or new premium packages will have limited and temporary effect because they simply redistribute the supply of nurses, not increase it."
Shortly thereafter, the Federal Government confirmed the existence of a severe nursing shortage. HHS's Health Resources and Services Administration issued its "Preliminary Findings from the National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses 2000". One alarming finding was that from 1980 to 2000, the proportion of registered nurses under 30 years of age had dropped from over 25% to under 10%. Each year, the number of applicants to nursing schools decreases. Even as the population ages and the demand for nurses rises, more nurses retire each year than enter nursing school.
In light of this alarming situation, the Subcommittee of Aging of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a legislative hearing on February 13, 2001 regarding "The Nursing Shortage And Its Impact On America's Health Care Delivery System".
In her opening statement at the hearing, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) stated:
Today's shortage is causing great distress for patients. According to a new survey by the American Nurses Association, 75 percent of nurses surveyed feel the quality of nursing care at the facility in which they work has declined over the past two years. About half of the nurses surveyed feel exhausted and discouraged when they leave work, and over half of those surveyed would not recommend their profession to their children or their friends.According to AHA News, Subcommittee Chairman Tim Hutchinson (R-AR) plans to introduce legislation focusing on nurse recruitment, training and education incentives, and faculty development.
Also, the Chairman of the full committee, Jim Jeffords (R-VT) and John Kerry (D-MA) met with health care professionals in Washington, D.C. on February 14, and pledged to introduce legislation to ease the nationwide nursing shortage.
Hopefully, temporary visas for foreign-born nurses will be included in the legislation. Prior to 1995, 6,000 to 8,000 such nurses entered the U.S. annually on "H-1A" visas.
For links to the above-referenced reports and the Congressional hearing, see
and scroll down to "National Shortage of Nurses".
and name the award (be specific!) that they are competing for will be the winner of the March Immigration Trivia Quiz. E-mail your answers to me at carl.shusterman@gte.net The winner will receive either a ticket to join me for the AILF Immigrant Achievement Awards on March 23, 2001 in Washington D.C., courtesy of our law firm, or, if you can not be present at the awards, a free 30-minute immigration consultation (either telephonic or in-person) with me.
For more information about the AILF Awards, see
Fortunately, the new Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), seems to hold similar views on immigration to Senator Abraham.
As a freshman senator, Spencer Abraham challenged then Subcommittee Chairmen Alan Simpson (R-WY) who had proposed slashing legal immigration to the U.S. by over 30%. Senator Brownback also opposed cuts to legal immigration.
He supported the NACARA bill in 1997, and voted to increase and improve the H-1B program in 1998 and 2000.
Anti-immigrant groups give Senator Brownback a "D-" on their so-called Immigration Report Card, and label him as a senator who "virtually always acts...(for) higher immigration". This stands Senator Brownback in the mainstream of Republican Committee Chairmen in the Senate, since only five of 17 chairmen received career grades higher than a "D+" according to the anti-immigrant group "Americans For Better (sic) Immigration". See
Pro-immigrant advocates look forward to working together with Senator Brownback to jointly promote fair and humane immigration policies.
I have arranged a meeting in Washington, D.C. with Senator Brownback and a select group of attorneys from the American Immigration Lawyers Association on March 22, 2001. I will report on the results of this meeting in our April newsletter.
Traditionally, Mexicans seeking employment have migrated north to better their living standards. When the economy sours, as it did during the Great Depression of the 1930s, INS rounded up and deported hundreds of thousands of Latinos, with little regard to whether they were citizens of the U.S. or Mexico. Then when the U.S. needs workers, we change the law to welcome them (e.g., the Bracero Program during and after World War II). When the urgency disappears, we round up Mexicans and Mexican-Americans alike and deport them (e.g., Operation Wetback in 1950). In general, see
The rise of anti-immigrant sentiment in California in the mid-1990's prompted the federal government to develop a new strategy to control illegal immigration along our southern border. The strategy, dubbed Operation Gatekeeper, dramatically increased the number of Border Patrol Agents, and resulted in the expenditure of over a billion dollars over the past 6 years in an effort to seal the border.
Has Operation Gatekeeper worked? And is it worth the price?
The California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) Foundation's Border Project would no doubt answer both of these questions in the negative. It is interesting and informative to take a look at their provocative web site:
According to information posted on the web site, the 66-mile San Diego sector of the 2000-mile border is where 25% of the Border Patrol agents are assigned; contains 72% of all border fencing; and 54% of all border illumination.
The site maintains that Operation Gatekeeper has not succeeded in sealing the border. Even though the number of Border Patrol agents has more than doubled since 1994, the number of apprehensions along the U.S.- Mexico border has increased by 68% from less than 1 million in 1994 to an all time high of 1.6 million in 1999. The INS estimates that the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. now exceeds 5 million.
The number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is difficult to measure. Just a few days ago, the Census Bureau estimated that there were 11 million illegals, more than double the INS figure, and that they were major contributors to the economic expansion of the 1990's. Everett Ehrlich, former undersecretary for economic affairs at the Commerce Department stated that "it looks like 5 million illegal immigrants were here that we didn't know about, maybe more, and wasn't the end of the world...and what if we didn't have them? Look at how they increased our productive potential."
In any case, at least as many persons become illegal in the U.S. by overstaying their visas as by crossing the border without being inspected by the INS.
The web site states that "all that Gatekeeper has achieved, at an enormous cost in lives, is to move the migrant foot traffic out of the public eye and give the appearance of a border under control."
What enormous cost in lives? The Mexican Foreign Relations Office reports that 491 Mexicans died in 2000 trying to illegally cross the border compared to 356 in 1999. Even the Border Patrol's own figures show a 60% increase in deaths. The biggest causes of deaths are hypothermia, heat stroke, drowning and accidents. Why has this occurred? While Operation Gatekeeper has discouraged people from trying to cross the border in the comparatively-safe San Diego sector, the border-crossers have moved eastward to California's Imperial desert, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas where the temperatures are extreme and the terrain is treacherous.
How can a policy which has cost the taxpayers over a billion dollars, but which has resulted in more, not less, illegal immigration and over 1,000 unnecessary deaths be justified?
None of this is to disparage the courageous actions of individual Border Patrol Agents who have saved countless border crossers from life-threatening situations. This is about a federal policy which looks to be terribly misguided. (We invite the INS to respond to CRLA's criticisms of Operation Gatekeeper. We would be pleased to include the Service's response in the April 2001 issue of SHUSTERMAN'S IMMIGRATION UPDATE.)
Take a few minutes to read this web site. Compare it with "The National Border Patrol Strategy" on the INS web site at
If you are convinced that Operation Gatekeeper is an efficient and effective way to control illegal immigration, e-mail President Bush and urge him to continue this program. If you agree with www.stopgatekeeper.com that Operation Gatekeeper seems more like a PR gimmick than a true immigration control policy, send an e-mail message to President Bush and urge him to consider a new border strategy, one which recognizes the mutual interests of both countries, and which saves money and lives.
President Bush's e-mail address is president@whitehouse.gov
Physicians have three separate methods of obtaining "waivers" of the two-year home residency requirement: (1) By sponsorship of "an interested government agency" (IGA); (2) By demonstrating that their spouse and/or children who are either U.S. citizens or permanent residents would suffer "exceptional hardship" if the physician were forced to return home for two years; or (3) By demonstrating that they have a "well-founded fear of persecution" if they returned home (Persecution waivers are seldom filed and are seldom granted). For general information about J waivers for physicians, see
The most common-granted type of waiver is based upon the sponsorship of a government agency, usually the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Veterans' Administration, the Appalachian Regional Commission or the 43 states which have established "Conrad State 20" programs. Our law firm has obtained 100 such waivers annually for physicians over the past 7-8 years. For information about interested governmental agency waivers, see
Much more difficult to obtain are waivers based upon exceptional hardship. First, the INS must determine whether the hardship suffered by designated family members will indeed be "exceptional". The general rule is that "temporary separation, even though abnormal, is a problem many families face in life and does not represent exceptional hardship..." Matter of Bridges, 11 I & N Dec. 506 (D.D. 1965).
Even where the INS finds exceptional hardship, the State Department must balance this hardship against the government's interests in preserving the integrity of the exchange visitor program's two-year home residency requirement. State Department officials have confirmed that their agency recommends against most requests for hardship waivers even where the INS has found that exceptional hardship exists. Unlike the INS's determination of exceptional hardship, the State Department's (binding) recommendation as to whether to grant a waiver may not be appealed.
On February 7, 2001, in a case appealed to the INS's Administrative Appeals Office (AA0) by Bruce Hake, Esq., the AAO overturned the decision of the Vermont Service Center that exceptional hardship was not present under the following circumstances:
The applicant was a Colombian-born physician who was admitted to the U.S. as a J-1 exchange visitor in 1994. She married a U.S. citizen in 1999, and they have a U.S. child.
The AAO held that "the record clearly establishes that the applicant's spouse would suffer exceptional hardship if he abandoned his present career in the United States to accompany his wife and child to Colombia where his life would be at risk as a United States citizen. The record also contains specific documents which reflect that the applicant's anxieties, such as fear for the safety of his wife and/or child if she returned to Colombia without him where her personal chance of being kidnaped, tortured or killed is greater than 25%. These anxieties go beyond the normal. It is concluded that the record now also contains evidence of hardships including separation, fear and anxiety which, in their totality, rise to the level of exceptional as envisioned by Congress if the applicant's husband remains in the United States while she returns to Colombia either with or without their child."
It should be noted that while the record is returned to the Vermont Service Center for a decision which will conclude that exceptional hardship exists in this case, the AAO has no authority over the State Department's recommendation in the matter.
To read the decision in its entirety, see
Still, AAO decisions reversing INS Service Centers on denials of waivers based upon "exceptional hardship" seem to be few and far between. The last time we posted such a decision was on February 14, 2000. See
For physicians seeking a J waiver, it is our strong advice that an interested government agency waiver is the type of waiver most likely to be approved.
In May 1999, we pioneered the concept of free online chats on various immigration topics. Our chats are always focused on a particular subject. Together with About.com's Immigration Guides, Jennifer and Peter Wipf, we have conducted over two dozen chats on a wide variety of subjects, all related to immigration laws and procedures.
We have conducted monthly chats on the LIFE Amendments (emphasizing §245i) starting December 22, 2000, one day after the amendments were signed into law.
Our February chat is not online. For the dates of our March and April chats, and for a list of chat transcripts, see
Audios --
Due to a thousand questions that we have been receiving about the temporary reauthorization of section 245(I), we have created an audio message entitled "Qualifying Under The New Section 245(I) Amendments". Listen to this, and our other audios at
A. What's an NIF and what's an NOF, and what's the difference?
NIF - Notice of Intent to Fine
NOF - Notice of Finding
The difference between the two is that the NIF can result from observed discrepancies of an employer I-9 audit. An NOF can result from observed discrepancies/missing information during the labor certification process. Also, the former is issued by the INS. The latter by the regional DOL.
NIF
At the close of the investigative phase, the INS may issue a Notice of
Intent to Fine (NIF) if it determines that a violation has occurred. The
NIF will allege that an employer has violated IRCA in one of the following
ways: (a) the employer knowingly hired an unauthorized alien, (b) the
employer continued to employ an unauthorized worker (c) the I-9 records were
deficient (i.e., there were paperwork violations); and/or (d) the employer
failed to provide the INS access to the I-9 records in a timely fashion.
The NIF will recite all of the facts and alleged violations and set a
proposed penalty. Upon Service of the NIF, an employer has 30 days to
contest the NIF and to ask for a hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ). An employer's failure to request such a hearing will result
in a final order. If an ALJ rules against an employer, the employer has
45 days to file a petition in the Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit for review of the order.
NOF
Within 45 days of receiving instructions from the state office, the
employer must report the results of its recruitment efforts to the state.
The state agency forwards the labor certification application to a
certifying officer in one of the ten regional offices of the U.S.
Department of Labor. Once there, the certifying officer may approve the
application, request more information, or issue a "Notice of Findings"
(NOF) that flags defects in the application and provides the employer
with a 35 day grace period to cure.
B. Can you identify each of following agencies and their functions: BIA, OCAHO, NVC, OSC and ETA?
BIA - Board of Immigration Appeals
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), hears appeals of decisions made in individual cases by Immigration Judges, INS District Directors, or other immigration officials;
OCAHO - The Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO), which became part of EOIR in 1987 to resolve cases concerning employer sanctions, document fraud, and immigration-related employment discrimination.
NVC - National Visa Center
In April of 1994 the Department of State opened a permanent Immigrant Visa processing facility at the National Visa Center (NVC) in Portsmouth, NH. NVC processes all approved immigrant visa petitions after they are received from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and retains them until the cases are ready for adjudication by a consular officer abroad. Petitions may remain at NVC for several weeks or for many years depending on the visa category and country of birth of the visa applicant. When an applicant's case is about to become current (a visa number is likely to be available within the year) the petition is forwarded to the appropriate U.S. embassy or consulate overseas. If an applicant is adjusting status in the U.S. the case will be forwarded to the appropriate INS office upon request by that office.
OSC - Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices
Under §274B, it is a violation of the law for an employer with three or more employees to engage in discrimination on the basis of national origin or citizenship status against a "protected individual". Congress established the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) within the Department of Justice to investigate allegations of discrimination under IRCA.
ETA - Employment and Training Administration
ETA oversees the H1-B LCA process as well as the alien permanent labor certification process (ETA-750).
See http://www.doleta.gov/ for a list of non-immigration services provided by the ETA.
C. What's the difference between a NOID and a NOIR?
NOID - Notice of Intent to Deny
NOID's are routinely sent out by the INS immigration case officers typically during adjustment of status applications if the INS finds problems with the application. The applicants have a chance to rebut the officer's findings, and have access to the usual appeals process.
NOIR - Notice of Intent to Revoke (Naturalization)
Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) or any similar such letter from the Immigration Service which indicates that the INS intends to investigate and revoke the basis for that person's naturalization.
The difference between the two is that NOID's are sent to applicants whose applications are PENDING. NOIR's are sent to applicants whose cases have already been approved earlier.
D. What's an OSC and what's an NTA, and how do they differ?
OSC - Order to Show Cause
Previously the NTA was called an Order to Show Cause (OSC) under the previous law; now the correct term is NTA.
"Notice to Appear" Used for Removal Proceedings
The 96 Act requires that one charging document be used to begin removal proceedings for inadmissible and deportable aliens. The charging documents previously referred to as the Order to Show Cause (OSC) and I-122, Notice to Applicant for Admission Detained for Hearing before Immigration Judge, are now combined into a single charging document called the Notice to Appear (NTA). The charge(s) cited will either be under the grounds of inadmissibility or deportability.
E. What does a J waiver waive? How about an NIW?
The J waiver waives the two year foreign residence requirement. The major drawback of the J visa is that many exchange visitors are permitted to enter the U.S. only on the condition that they exit this country for a minimum of two years after their program is completed.
There are five statutory bases upon which you can apply for a waiver of the two-year foreign residence requirement:
Also, in an earlier non-precedent decision, the INS had enumerated the following seven factors in defining "national interest". (In light of the new, more restrictive decision, it is open to question whether these seven factors will continue to guide INS adjudicators.)
Would your employment
Immigration Courts are not a part of the INS. The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is the agency which manages the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
AAO - INS Administrative Appeals Office. Petitioners have the right to appeal denials by a Service center to the INS Administrative Appeals Office.
ASC - INS Application Services Center (typically offer fingerprinting services)
CSC/NSC/TSC/VSC - INS's California/Nebraska/Texas/Vermont Service Centers
Asylum Offices are administered by the INS as well.
Carl,Congratulations Mandar! No wonder some people say that "IQ" stands for "Indian Quotient"!I'm genuinely and pleasantly shocked! I found the questions to the trivia quiz so easy since they were all related to immigration terminology. I didn't expect to win, since I entered almost a day or two after the quiz was first posted.
In any case, Feb 21st turned out to be an immigration bonanza for me. I won the trivia quiz, and I also received my I-485 and I-765 receipt notices from the INS in my mailbox on the same day! How about that? :)
A little background about myself - I was born in India, and came to this country as a student (M.S. computer science, Univ. of Oklahoma, Norman - go Sooners, 2000 football champs!) in May 1992. I'm currently a senior computer consultant working via my consulting firm for IBM since the past 5 years, supporting multiple Fortune 500 customers.
In my spare time, I was instrumental in founding the first alternative Internet Relay Chat (IRC) network called the Undernet in 1992. Fellow cricket enthusiasts on this list who have been around for long, will also fondly remember the first live cricket commentary channel on IRC :-)
I must compliment you for an excellent website - I can't remember how long I've been a visitor and subscriber since I've been on the net for so long...I visit your website almost daily since I love the way you keep us updated on the latest immigration news. I also highly applaud you for fighting the good fight on behalf of all us faceless, nameless immigrants - I deeply appreciate your efforts in getting us the immigrant visa rollovers from unused quotas from previous years via ACTA. You are our hero!
I found answers to 75% of the questions you asked, on your website itself via your "search" facility (surprise, surprise ;). Just in case my worthy opponents made a minor mistake, I decided to cut and paste the reasoning for every answer I found *grin* The rest of the questions were really simple too - I went to www.google.com (my fav search engine) and weeded out whatever acronym expansions didn't look they were immigration related. A majority of these organizations (ETA, OCAHO, etc) have their own websites which made it all the more easier.
Don't have much more to add - I just wanted to remind everyone on the list how fortunate we are to be admitted to this great nation. Let's not forget who we are, where we came from, and who we must be, to live in harmony and become true Americans. Let's give back to his country what it gave to us, an opportunity to explore the American dream.
After all, I live in the state of New York which houses a famous statue that says..."Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Mandar Mirashi
Maintainer: ftp.undernet.org, Undernet IRC FAQ.
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/alt.irc.undernet
For IRC help/Undernet information, check out http://www.undernet.org
Carl Shusterman
Certified Specialist in Immigration Law, State Bar of California
Former U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service Trial Attorney (1976-82)
Board of Governors, American Immigration Lawyers Association (1988-97)
Phone: (213) 623-4592 Fax: (213) 623-3720
Law Offices of Carl Shusterman, 600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1550
Los Angeles, California 90017
March 13, 2001