- Home
- Forums
- Immigrant Visas (Green Cards)
- I-485 Issues
- I-485 Issues Common to All Services Centers
- General I-485 and Related Issues
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hurray! ..Byrd ammendment Defeated
- Thread starter jsn_lee
- Start date
waitingnwaiting
Registered Users (C)
Awesome news!!
yes .. thats a good news .. i was also watching it .... felt happy to see the result ... For all those who want to see who voted for/against the amendment check the following link ...
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00295
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00295
h1b2ndterm
Registered Users (C)
forgive my ignorance ..
What does this mean in layman terms. When will this be effective from if passed in both houses and signed by president?
What does this mean in layman terms. When will this be effective from if passed in both houses and signed by president?
IPC302 said:yes .. thats a good news .. i was also watching it .... felt happy to see the result ... For all those who want to see who voted for/against the amendment check the following link ...
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00295
IPC302..Thanks....good job by providing URL & to see voted for/against..
IPC302 said:yes .. thats a good news .. i was also watching it .... felt happy to see the result ... For all those who want to see who voted for/against the amendment check the following link ...
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00295
waitingnwaiting
Registered Users (C)
h1b2ndterm,
This was an amendment (S 2367) to the original bill (S 1932).
S 2367 has failed.This wont become law.
What we need to look for is that S 1932 passes.
This was an amendment (S 2367) to the original bill (S 1932).
S 2367 has failed.This wont become law.
What we need to look for is that S 1932 passes.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a good news for everyone who was affected by retro. I don't see that the purpose of the bill was to stop the relief as I thought initially. On the link provided it says:
"To replace title VIII of the bill with an amendment to section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to impose a fee on employers who hire certain non-immigrants."
Please clarify my doubts?
Thanks
"To replace title VIII of the bill with an amendment to section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to impose a fee on employers who hire certain non-immigrants."
Please clarify my doubts?
Thanks
waitingnwaiting
Registered Users (C)
IL_LABOR,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109v8dbMV:e957704:
The above content is what Byrd wanted to change.
He wanted to replace the above content with the one below (the text is in the middle)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109icmZVo:e364626:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
basically, He wanted to delete SEC 8001 (recapture of visa) and SEC 8002 (fee for intracompany transferees)
and then replace it with a modified version of SEC 8002.
So the result would have been that SEC 8001 would disappear and there would be no recapture of visas.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109v8dbMV:e957704:
The above content is what Byrd wanted to change.
He wanted to replace the above content with the one below (the text is in the middle)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109icmZVo:e364626:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
basically, He wanted to delete SEC 8001 (recapture of visa) and SEC 8002 (fee for intracompany transferees)
and then replace it with a modified version of SEC 8002.
So the result would have been that SEC 8001 would disappear and there would be no recapture of visas.