H4 EAD termination confirmed 👍

[rajivn786]

Trump adminstration only extended appeal date to April to see if it's going to effect a majority of people. But unfortunately So-cal who filed against H4 EAD couldn;t prove that their jobs were taken by them and the Judge dismissed it because there is no substantial proof with H4 EAD's given only to limited H1B condition. A max of 180k EAD's were give over the last 1-2 years which is very less. 

 

SAVE JOBS USA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY was a case filed back on April 23, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia . Save Jobs USA is an organization comprised of IT workers who claim they lost their jobs to H-1B workers. The group challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”)  H-4 EAD regulation that went into effect on May 26, 2015. The court granted summary judgement in favor of the government, finding that only a subset of H-4 visa holders would be eligible to obtain EADs and Save Jobs USA did not establish that its members would be harmed by having to compete against a subset of H-4 visa holders for jobs. In addition, the court went on to state that Congress delegated authority to DHS to set rules regarding employment authorization and DHS was reasonable in using that authority to grant EADs to some H-4 visa holders. The case was closed at the district court level on September 28, 2016.

Save Jobs USA immediately filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case has been winding its way through the appeals process for the last four months. Save Jobs USA filed its brief discussing the merits of the case on January 11, 2017. They claim:

1. the H-4 EAD causes injuries to Save Jobs USA members because it allows competition from the H-4 EAD holders, increases the number of H-1B workers competition with them, and there are no protections for US workers in the H-4 EAD rule.
2.  DHS was not authorized by congress to grant EADs to H-4 visa holders

Both of these arguments may sound familiar, they were also raised in the STEM OPT extension litigation. You may recall that that case eventually resulted in the old STEM OPT extension rule being vacated. BUT, remember that the court only vacated that rule because they felt the rulemaking process was deficient, not because the of the merits of the case. A new STEM OPT regulation was finalized just in time and has been in place since last year.

The H-4 EAD rule went through the full rulemaking process, so it is unlikely that the rule would be vacated for the same reason that the old STEM OPT rule was.

Now that the Trump administration has taken office, they filed a motion last week to request an extra 60 days to submit their brief in response to the Save Jobs USA brief filed in January.

Some media outlets are claiming that the Trump administration’s motion was filed “to revoke EADs for H-4 visa holders.” This is 100% not true. The Trump administration’s motion was filed simply to request time for incoming leadership personnel to consider the issues. The Trump administration has not asked the court to withdraw the H-4 EAD as was wrongly reported today.

The full text of the Trump administrations’s motion is as follows:

“Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P 27 and this Court’s Circuit Rule 27, and for the following reasons, Defendant-Appellee respectfully requests that this Court hold this case in abeyance for sixty (60) days, up to and including April 2, 2017. The abeyance request is consented to by Appellant.

1. This case involves an Administrative Procedure Act challenge to the Executive’s legal authority to issue, through notice and comment rulemaking, rules permitting aliens not otherwise unlawfully present in the United States and not otherwise barred by Congress from working while in the United States to apply for and receive employment authorization from the Department of Homeland Security. Plaintiff-Appellant challenges the Department’s application of this authority to promulgate a rule, Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses, 80 Fed. Reg. 10284-10312 (Feb. 25, 2015), which permits certain so-called H-4 visa holders,1 see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H), to apply for, and if deemed eligible, to receive work authorization from the Secretary of Homeland Security.

2. Although the District Court dismissed this case for lack of Article III standing, it stated in dicta that “it will also nevertheless briefly discuss the merits of Plaintiff’s [Administrative Procedure Act] claim.” App.-108. 1 H-4 visas are visas issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H), by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to immediate family members (spouse and children under 21 years of age) of H-1B visa holders. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(H). That district court’s dicta opined that: “Congress has delegated substantial authority to DHS and its predecessor agency to issue employment-related immigration regulations, as part of the broader scope of its power to enforce the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and issue rules governing nonimmigrants[;]” that even if it had not, the Secretary’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103 and 1324a(h)(3), was a reasonable interpretation of that authority under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984) and this Court’s precedents interpreting Chevron; and that the challenged Rule implemented pursuant to this authority was no arbitrary, capricious or manifestly contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act. App.-108-09. The district court’s dicta concluded that “in light of the broad delegation of authority Congress conferred to DHS to set rules regarding employment authorization in §§1103(a) and 1324(h)(3),and its thorough consideration of the relevant factors in its decision-making, the court would likely conclude that [the Department of Homeland Security’s] interpretation of its authority under the [Immigration and Nationality Act] is not unreasonable, and the H-4 Rule is a valid exercise of this rulemaking authority.” Id.

3. The majority of Appellant’s brief addresses these merits issues. The federal government respectfully requests a 60-day abeyance of the case, to and including April 2, 2017. The requested extension is necessary to allow incoming leadership personnel adequate time to consider the issues.

5. Appellant’s counsel has authorized us to state that they consent to this extension motion.”

 

I know many people are worried about all the possible changes being tossed around. Much of it is just rumors. And many of the changes being proposed (like the bill that the media has wrongfully claimed raises the prevailing wage to $130,000 for H-1B workers) are done for political reasons, not necessarily because they have a chance of passing both the Senate and the House and being signed into law by the President.

We may eventually see changes coming, but let’s not get hysterical when nothing has actually happened yet. Keep Calm and Stay Tuned!

[mekapichal_mnthmkura]

7 minutes ago, rajivn786 said:

Trump adminstration only extended appeal date to April to see if it's going to effect a majority of people. But unfortunately So-cal who filed against H4 EAD couldn;t prove that their jobs were taken by them and the Judge dismissed it because there is no substantial proof with H4 EAD's given only to limited H1B condition. A max of 180k EAD's were give over the last 1-2 years which is very less. 

 

SAVE JOBS USA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY was a case filed back on April 23, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia . Save Jobs USA is an organization comprised of IT workers who claim they lost their jobs to H-1B workers. The group challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”)  H-4 EAD regulation that went into effect on May 26, 2015. The court granted summary judgement in favor of the government, finding that only a subset of H-4 visa holders would be eligible to obtain EADs and Save Jobs USA did not establish that its members would be harmed by having to compete against a subset of H-4 visa holders for jobs. In addition, the court went on to state that Congress delegated authority to DHS to set rules regarding employment authorization and DHS was reasonable in using that authority to grant EADs to some H-4 visa holders. The case was closed at the district court level on September 28, 2016.

Save Jobs USA immediately filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case has been winding its way through the appeals process for the last four months. Save Jobs USA filed its brief discussing the merits of the case on January 11, 2017. They claim:

1. the H-4 EAD causes injuries to Save Jobs USA members because it allows competition from the H-4 EAD holders, increases the number of H-1B workers competition with them, and there are no protections for US workers in the H-4 EAD rule.
2.  DHS was not authorized by congress to grant EADs to H-4 visa holders

Both of these arguments may sound familiar, they were also raised in the STEM OPT extension litigation. You may recall that that case eventually resulted in the old STEM OPT extension rule being vacated. BUT, remember that the court only vacated that rule because they felt the rulemaking process was deficient, not because the of the merits of the case. A new STEM OPT regulation was finalized just in time and has been in place since last year.

The H-4 EAD rule went through the full rulemaking process, so it is unlikely that the rule would be vacated for the same reason that the old STEM OPT rule was.

Now that the Trump administration has taken office, they filed a motion last week to request an extra 60 days to submit their brief in response to the Save Jobs USA brief filed in January.

Some media outlets are claiming that the Trump administration’s motion was filed “to revoke EADs for H-4 visa holders.” This is 100% not true. The Trump administration’s motion was filed simply to request time for incoming leadership personnel to consider the issues. The Trump administration has not asked the court to withdraw the H-4 EAD as was wrongly reported today.

The full text of the Trump administrations’s motion is as follows:

“Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P 27 and this Court’s Circuit Rule 27, and for the following reasons, Defendant-Appellee respectfully requests that this Court hold this case in abeyance for sixty (60) days, up to and including April 2, 2017. The abeyance request is consented to by Appellant.

1. This case involves an Administrative Procedure Act challenge to the Executive’s legal authority to issue, through notice and comment rulemaking, rules permitting aliens not otherwise unlawfully present in the United States and not otherwise barred by Congress from working while in the United States to apply for and receive employment authorization from the Department of Homeland Security. Plaintiff-Appellant challenges the Department’s application of this authority to promulgate a rule, Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses, 80 Fed. Reg. 10284-10312 (Feb. 25, 2015), which permits certain so-called H-4 visa holders,1 see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H), to apply for, and if deemed eligible, to receive work authorization from the Secretary of Homeland Security.

2. Although the District Court dismissed this case for lack of Article III standing, it stated in dicta that “it will also nevertheless briefly discuss the merits of Plaintiff’s [Administrative Procedure Act] claim.” App.-108. 1 H-4 visas are visas issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H), by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to immediate family members (spouse and children under 21 years of age) of H-1B visa holders. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(H). That district court’s dicta opined that: “Congress has delegated substantial authority to DHS and its predecessor agency to issue employment-related immigration regulations, as part of the broader scope of its power to enforce the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and issue rules governing nonimmigrants[;]” that even if it had not, the Secretary’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103 and 1324a(h)(3), was a reasonable interpretation of that authority under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984) and this Court’s precedents interpreting Chevron; and that the challenged Rule implemented pursuant to this authority was no arbitrary, capricious or manifestly contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act. App.-108-09. The district court’s dicta concluded that “in light of the broad delegation of authority Congress conferred to DHS to set rules regarding employment authorization in §§1103(a) and 1324(h)(3),and its thorough consideration of the relevant factors in its decision-making, the court would likely conclude that [the Department of Homeland Security’s] interpretation of its authority under the [Immigration and Nationality Act] is not unreasonable, and the H-4 Rule is a valid exercise of this rulemaking authority.” Id.

3. The majority of Appellant’s brief addresses these merits issues. The federal government respectfully requests a 60-day abeyance of the case, to and including April 2, 2017. The requested extension is necessary to allow incoming leadership personnel adequate time to consider the issues.

5. Appellant’s counsel has authorized us to state that they consent to this extension motion.”

 

I know many people are worried about all the possible changes being tossed around. Much of it is just rumors. And many of the changes being proposed (like the bill that the media has wrongfully claimed raises the prevailing wage to $130,000 for H-1B workers) are done for political reasons, not necessarily because they have a chance of passing both the Senate and the House and being signed into law by the President.

We may eventually see changes coming, but let’s not get hysterical when nothing has actually happened yet. Keep Calm and Stay Tuned!

anyhow its CONFIRMED.. H4 EAD Terminated

[rajivn786]

1 minute ago, mekapichal_mnthmkura said:

anyhow its CONFIRMED.. H4 EAD Terminated

Are you OPT or Fake MS?

[TampaChinnodu]

11 minutes ago, rajivn786 said:

Trump adminstration only extended appeal date to April to see if it's going to effect a majority of people. But unfortunately So-cal who filed against H4 EAD couldn;t prove that their jobs were taken by them and the Judge dismissed it because there is no substantial proof with H4 EAD's given only to limited H1B condition. A max of 180k EAD's were give over the last 1-2 years which is very less. 

 

SAVE JOBS USA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY was a case filed back on April 23, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia . Save Jobs USA is an organization comprised of IT workers who claim they lost their jobs to H-1B workers. The group challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”)  H-4 EAD regulation that went into effect on May 26, 2015. The court granted summary judgement in favor of the government, finding that only a subset of H-4 visa holders would be eligible to obtain EADs and Save Jobs USA did not establish that its members would be harmed by having to compete against a subset of H-4 visa holders for jobs. In addition, the court went on to state that Congress delegated authority to DHS to set rules regarding employment authorization and DHS was reasonable in using that authority to grant EADs to some H-4 visa holders. The case was closed at the district court level on September 28, 2016.

Save Jobs USA immediately filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case has been winding its way through the appeals process for the last four months. Save Jobs USA filed its brief discussing the merits of the case on January 11, 2017. They claim:

1. the H-4 EAD causes injuries to Save Jobs USA members because it allows competition from the H-4 EAD holders, increases the number of H-1B workers competition with them, and there are no protections for US workers in the H-4 EAD rule.
2.  DHS was not authorized by congress to grant EADs to H-4 visa holders

Both of these arguments may sound familiar, they were also raised in the STEM OPT extension litigation. You may recall that that case eventually resulted in the old STEM OPT extension rule being vacated. BUT, remember that the court only vacated that rule because they felt the rulemaking process was deficient, not because the of the merits of the case. A new STEM OPT regulation was finalized just in time and has been in place since last year.

The H-4 EAD rule went through the full rulemaking process, so it is unlikely that the rule would be vacated for the same reason that the old STEM OPT rule was.

Now that the Trump administration has taken office, they filed a motion last week to request an extra 60 days to submit their brief in response to the Save Jobs USA brief filed in January.

Some media outlets are claiming that the Trump administration’s motion was filed “to revoke EADs for H-4 visa holders.” This is 100% not true. The Trump administration’s motion was filed simply to request time for incoming leadership personnel to consider the issues. The Trump administration has not asked the court to withdraw the H-4 EAD as was wrongly reported today.

The full text of the Trump administrations’s motion is as follows:

“Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P 27 and this Court’s Circuit Rule 27, and for the following reasons, Defendant-Appellee respectfully requests that this Court hold this case in abeyance for sixty (60) days, up to and including April 2, 2017. The abeyance request is consented to by Appellant.

1. This case involves an Administrative Procedure Act challenge to the Executive’s legal authority to issue, through notice and comment rulemaking, rules permitting aliens not otherwise unlawfully present in the United States and not otherwise barred by Congress from working while in the United States to apply for and receive employment authorization from the Department of Homeland Security. Plaintiff-Appellant challenges the Department’s application of this authority to promulgate a rule, Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses, 80 Fed. Reg. 10284-10312 (Feb. 25, 2015), which permits certain so-called H-4 visa holders,1 see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H), to apply for, and if deemed eligible, to receive work authorization from the Secretary of Homeland Security.

2. Although the District Court dismissed this case for lack of Article III standing, it stated in dicta that “it will also nevertheless briefly discuss the merits of Plaintiff’s [Administrative Procedure Act] claim.” App.-108. 1 H-4 visas are visas issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H), by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to immediate family members (spouse and children under 21 years of age) of H-1B visa holders. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(15)(H). That district court’s dicta opined that: “Congress has delegated substantial authority to DHS and its predecessor agency to issue employment-related immigration regulations, as part of the broader scope of its power to enforce the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and issue rules governing nonimmigrants[;]” that even if it had not, the Secretary’s interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103 and 1324a(h)(3), was a reasonable interpretation of that authority under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984) and this Court’s precedents interpreting Chevron; and that the challenged Rule implemented pursuant to this authority was no arbitrary, capricious or manifestly contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act. App.-108-09. The district court’s dicta concluded that “in light of the broad delegation of authority Congress conferred to DHS to set rules regarding employment authorization in §§1103(a) and 1324(h)(3),and its thorough consideration of the relevant factors in its decision-making, the court would likely conclude that [the Department of Homeland Security’s] interpretation of its authority under the [Immigration and Nationality Act] is not unreasonable, and the H-4 Rule is a valid exercise of this rulemaking authority.” Id.

3. The majority of Appellant’s brief addresses these merits issues. The federal government respectfully requests a 60-day abeyance of the case, to and including April 2, 2017. The requested extension is necessary to allow incoming leadership personnel adequate time to consider the issues.

5. Appellant’s counsel has authorized us to state that they consent to this extension motion.”

 

I know many people are worried about all the possible changes being tossed around. Much of it is just rumors. And many of the changes being proposed (like the bill that the media has wrongfully claimed raises the prevailing wage to $130,000 for H-1B workers) are done for political reasons, not necessarily because they have a chance of passing both the Senate and the House and being signed into law by the President.

We may eventually see changes coming, but let’s not get hysterical when nothing has actually happened yet. Keep Calm and Stay Tuned!

Good Post. May be not any immediate threat to H4 EAD. But it will be on top of sessions list of things to do for sure.

[mekapichal_mnthmkura]

31 minutes ago, rajivn786 said:

Are you OPT or Fake MS?

@rajivn786

I mentioned about it thousands of times.. again I am repeating for ppl like you..

I did MS Comp.Science from USC, Los Angeles and used CPT/OPT to start as an intern in one of the prestigious Software firms... converted to Full time in 1.5 yrs

currently working for about 7 yrs . Got GC recently.

Partnering with few American friends in some Motel businesses .

owner of 2 gas stations in South California Area..(providing employment to MS students. I pay $15 per hour to them more than anyother Gas stations in my area coz I have gone through that phase)

Own 3 condos and 2 independent houses.

All this in a span of 8.5 yrs..

 

anyhow H4 EAD termination CONFIRMED..

I have seen many cases where unfortunate H1s and OPTs have been suppressed with H4 EADs. So I wanted to go against it.. its a slow poison dude..

[crazymatta]

6 minutes ago, rajivn786 said:

Are you OPT or Fake MS?

he is mek@pich@l.. any prob naa matta

calling @mekapichal_mnthmkura

[mekapichal_mnthmkura]

3 minutes ago, crazymatta said:

he is mek@pich@l.. any prob naa matta

calling @mekapichal_mnthmkura

@crazymatta baa... he is fake pakodi imported anukunta..

[crazymatta]

1 minute ago, mekapichal_mnthmkura said:

@crazymatta baa... he is fake pakodi imported anukunta..

lol ayundachu..  ayina deeni gurinchi maatladali ante either opeetee or ms pake ayundala naa matta

[rajivn786]

8 minutes ago, TampaChinnodu said:

Good Post. May be not any immediate threat to H4 EAD. But it will be on top of sessions list of things to do for sure.

Not Immediate threat. But to repeal such act, some substantial proof is needed which they can prove in terms of OPT where lot of candidates come in every year. So DHS immediately did rule-making in 60 days and approved it. Where as for H4, it's only limited set of people (H1B's en-route to permanent residency) around 180k..which is very minimum compared to EAD's given for other rules. Immediate action would be on OPT and H1's which will even more lmiit H4's...So revoking or removing it will not make any difference to US jobs...

[mekapichal_mnthmkura]

Just now, crazymatta said:

lol ayundachu..  ayina deeni gurinchi maatladali ante either opeetee or ms pake ayundala naa matta

correst tolded baa..

 

[zoolakataka_14]

1 minute ago, rajivn786 said:

Not Immediate threat. But to repeal such act, some substantial proof is needed which they can prove in terms of OPT where lot of candidates come in every year. So DHS immediately did rule-making in 60 days and approved it. Where as for H4, it's only limited set of people (H1B's en-route to permanent residency) around 180k..which is very minimum compared to EAD's given for other rules. Immediate action would be on OPT and H1's which will even more lmiit H4's...So revoking or removing it will not make any difference to US jobs...

you nailed it. ee picha mokalaki eppudu ardham avthado endho

[mekapichal_mnthmkura]

14 minutes ago, TampaChinnodu said:

Good Post. May be not any immediate threat to H4 EAD. But it will be on top of sessions list of things to do for sure.

Its sure thing to go

[TampaChinnodu]

2 minutes ago, rajivn786 said:

Not Immediate threat. But to repeal such act, some substantial proof is needed which they can prove in terms of OPT where lot of candidates come in every year. So DHS immediately did rule-making in 60 days and approved it. Where as for H4, it's only limited set of people (H1B's en-route to permanent residency) around 180k..which is very minimum compared to EAD's given for other rules. Immediate action would be on OPT and H1's which will even more lmiit H4's...So revoking or removing it will not make any difference to US jobs...

Agreed. OPT and Indian MNC's H1 issue will be priority compared to h4 EAD.

It might be just 180k number when it started, But I personally saw more than 10 people who got converted to h4 EAD from H1 to get more scope in jobs search. Add to that any future h4 EAD applicants.

[zoolakataka_14]

19 minutes ago, rajivn786 said:

Are you OPT or Fake MS?

He is all fake

[mekapichal_mnthmkura]

Just now, zoolakataka_14 said:

you nailed it. ee picha mokalaki eppudu ardham avthado endho

lol... I guess you are one of those H4 EAD exploiters group.. and see everyone opposing as cryers. its not the case bro..

There is more oppression and misuse of it in many Desi flooded companies.. I have seen many and my friends experienced many..

so H4 EAD termination/cancellation is supported.

you will not realize until you are replaced by a H4 EAD coz your employer doesn't need to sponsor and can get someone for low wages.

if they r that talented they can get the job in their field of expertise and get sponsored by their employer if the employer feels their skills are much needed.

but filling positions by firing someone or letting someone resign by giving hard time and making their team mates family members sit in the team chairs is not approved of.