Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

RSS feed

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Seminars

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Classifieds

Advertise

VIP Lawyer Network

EB-5

High Net Worth

Custom Content

Dubai Events

Find HNW People

Custom Events

Custom Services

Professional Services

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Careers

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE




ilw.com VIP


The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-2014
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

IDBlog

Letters of the Week: Apr 7 - Apr 11

Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
Please email your letters to editor@ilw.com or post them directly as a comment below.

Submit "Letters of the Week: Apr 7 - Apr 11" to Facebook Submit "Letters of the Week: Apr 7 - Apr 11" to Twitter Submit "Letters of the Week: Apr 7 - Apr 11" to Google Submit "Letters of the Week: Apr 7 - Apr 11" to StumbleUpon Submit "Letters of the Week: Apr 7 - Apr 11" to Reddit Submit "Letters of the Week: Apr 7 - Apr 11" to Digg Submit "Letters of the Week: Apr 7 - Apr 11" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. Parker1's Avatar
    when we have cir maybe. but what about worthwhile individuals who didn't bother breaking the law?
  2. Alan Lee, Esq.'s Avatar
    Dear Editor:

    The attached unpublished decision of the AAO involves the interpretation of the words “doing business” in an I-140 EB-1C multinational executive/managerial petition where the U. S. petitioner’s evidence of such was only between itself and an overseas affiliate and not any other companies in the U. S. The Center Director denied the petition finding that the petitioner had failed to establish that it had been doing business for at least one year as of the date the petition was filed, reasoning that the petitioner’s evidence for a full year preceding the filing of the petition only demonstrated the shipment of goods from the foreign company to the U. S. company. The AAO sustained our argument that the regulations do not require a petitioning U. S. company to be a direct party to contracts or a direct provider of goods and services to a U. S. customer. It compared the regulatory definitions of “doing business” in both the immigrant and nonimmigrant contexts, found that they were nearly identical, pointed to statements of legacy INS during the regulatory process that included services to a company outside the United States, and thus declined to read a third-party or non-affiliation requirement into the regulations.

    The decision will hopefully be of interest to the readership.

    Very Truly Yours,

    Alan Lee, Esq.
    Alan Lee, Attorney at Law

    http://www.ilw.com/articles/2014,0408-aao.pdf
  3. K. Larson's Avatar
    It is time for us to remove the Statue of Liberty from New York. How many of those who are so opposed to new immigrants have considered the following:"Give me your tired your poor; your huddled masses yearning to be free; the wretched refuse of your teaming shores. Send these the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lanp beside the Golden Door." Today we seem to ignore one of the main reasons America has been a great nation-the recognition that those described in the base of the Statue of Liberty are the hardest working people in the world, and that all they have needed is opportunity to direct their energies to improving the lives of their loved ones. Both of my grand parents came to America from foreign countries. One of them came from many thousands of miles away because their progeny was going to starve to death if they stayed in their country. That event was in the very early 20th century. Jeb Bush has it right. And I am a Republican too. K. Larson
  4. T. Septembre's Avatar
    Good morning,

    In reference to USCIS Revises FAQs on Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the answers to Question 13 and 14 are purely political in nature, provide no guidance regarding "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" processing, may give the impression to an immigrant that it is the policy of the Department of Homeland Security, does not belong in Q&A on Deferred Action, and smacks of being endorsed by a government agency that should be non partisan. The published positions of any United States Government agency should remain neutral.

    We are a country in need of immigration reform. We must be vigilant, and abstain from the guise or appearance of any partisan position by a government agency saddled with enforcing the laws of the United States. The position of any United States Government agency must remain neutral.

    We must be proactive in bringing the undocumented immigration issue into prospective and the forefront without pushing a political agenda as that fractures support.
    Any decision regarding immigration reform is made by Congress on behalf of all the Citizens of the United States, thus is non partisan.

    Sincerely,
    E. Thomas Septembre, Esq
    Immigration Practice
    The Law Offices of Frank Wolland,Esq.
    12865 West Dixie Highway, Second Floor
    North Miami, Florida 33161
    305.899.8588
    FAX:305.892.8434
    Skype: tom.septembre
Leave Comment Leave Comment
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

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