Які нові мікропозики ви знаєте в Україні? Це в першу чергу ті, що видають кредити під нуль відсотків.
Коли справа стосується грошей до зарплати, використовувати позику по телефону дуже вигідно. Дзвониш і отримуєш гроші.
У будь-який час доби отримати дистанційну позику без відмови може людина навіть без офіційного працевлаштування.
Получить за 5 минут простой кредит на карту в Украине без звонков на работу и родственникам. Залог так же не нужен.
Частные кредиторы не всегда готовы переводить онлайн займ на карту Приватбанка, если у заемщика нет дохода.
Сьогодні вирішення фінансових проблем стало дуже простим. Просто потрібно зайти на сайт МФО і отримати позику на картку в Україні без відмови. Без відмов, дзвінків і поручителів кредит без працевлаштування на картку в Україні. Кращі рішення при складних фінансових справах. Новые МФО для привлечения клиентов предлагают кредит онлайн под 0 процентов. Нужен только паспорт и ИНН для получения.Main > Work > Kunstkammer > Do You Speak English?
Every now and then a case presents itself that challenges my basic assumptions about what’s reasonable and what’s bizarre, what’s funny haha and what’s funny strange. Last year, I worked on a rebuttal to a Notice of Intent to Revoke received by a U.S. employer in connection with their approved immigrant visa petition. After many years of processing delays while waiting for a priority date to become current, the applicant’s file was returned stateside to the USCIS Service Center for revocation following a consular interview. Among the few cited grounds for revocation was one that I had never seen before: the consular officer alleged that the visa applicant, a skilled worker, didn’t speak any English. The immigration service examiner who received the file from his U.S. Department of State colleague and prepared a Notice of Intent to Revoke didn’t seem to mind that the consular officer’s allegations didn’t correspond to any existing statutes or regulations governing the issuance of immigrant visas to skilled workers. It appears that the immigration examiner simply decided to cut and paste the consular officer’s recommendations into his own document without performing his own substantive analysis. So here’s the actual exhibit. And here’s an excerpt from the response letter that I confess I had a lot of fun preparing.
It was also determined that the beneficiary doesn’t speak any English. The beneficiary speaks […] and […], the same language as the petitioner, who is also the beneficiary’s first cousin and his wife’s brother. When asked what his job duties would be he had no ideal[sic]; all he could say was that he was going to be a distribution manager.
The applicable regulations governing the immigrant visas for skilled workers provide as follows:
Skilled worker means an alien who is capable, at the time of petitioning for this classification, of performing skilled labor (requiring at least two years training or experience), not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States. Relevant post-secondary education may be considered as training for the purposes of this provision. See 8 C.F.R. §204.5(l)(2).
In light of these regulations, Counsel argues that English language skills of the beneficiary are irrelevant to the determination of his eligibility under the sought immigrant visa classification, unless these skills are expressly required by the alien labor certification or by an independent statute or regulation. The proffered position is not one where English language proficiency is an inseparable component of the job description, such as English teacher, for example. Nor is this position one where English language proficiency is required by other independent statutes, regulations, or state laws, such as the English language proficiency requirement for Registered Nurses in connection with Visa Screen, for example. Counsel respectfully challenges the Service to cite specific statutes or regulations or case law that would support the denial of an immigrant visa to a skilled worker on the basis of his alleged lack of English language skills. If English language proficiency were an objective criterion to the determination of the beneficiary’s eligibility for the skilled worker classification, Counsel suggests that not only would such proficiency would have to be statutory and it would have to be measured consistently and uniformly, but such proficiency would also have to be measured using an objective method, such as a test measuring English language proficiency of naturalization applicants. In other words, there would have to be a uniform test to determine English language proficiency of adjustment of status applicants and immigrant visa applicants for the skilled worker category. There isn’t. Counsel further notes that if English language proficiency were to be tested in such a manner, it would have to be tested in connection with all adjustment of status applications and immigrant visa applications filed on behalf of all skilled workers. It isn’t. Indeed, many of these workers possess limited or no English language skills, but this does not prevent them from adjusting status and becoming lawful permanent residents based on job offers from U.S. employers. If English language proficiency were required for this case at any specific level it would have to be listed on Form ETA 750 or ETA 9089, as certified by the Department of Labor. It isn’t. So what does this mean when the Consular Officer reports that the beneficiary “doesn’t speak any English”? To Counsel it means that the Consular Officer has found a way to deny a visa to the beneficiary by creating a new ground of inadmissibility — “failure to speak English to the satisfaction of Consular Officer.” Whatever the reasoning of the Consular Officer and of the Service, such a denial is clearly not based on any applicable statutes or regulations. The Consular Officer’s conduct and the Service’s tacit encouragement of such conduct by supporting the revocation without inquiring into its legal basis in the instant case constitute an abuse of discretion.
Absent fraud or misrepresentation with regard to the alien’s stated skills and experience on Form ETA 750 or ETA 9089, limited or nonexistent English language skills of immigrant visa applicants were never intended by Congress to be an impediment to their acquisition of lawful permanent residence through employment. The proffered position doesn’t expressly require English language proficiency. Nor does it require English language proficiency at any given skill level. Denying this petition on the ground that the beneficiary has failed to satisfy the consular officer’s subjective criterion of English language proficiency is tantamount to denying a visa on the basis that the beneficiary may be unqualified for the proffered position because he is too short or too tall or has a minor physical impairment, such as a limp or has less-than-perfect vision, which would be discriminatory, illegal, and absurd. Counsel wonders whether the Consular Officer and the Service would next require the beneficiary to do push-ups in order to determine his suitability and fitness, and, ultimately, his eligibility for the proffered position. Fortunately, the entire permanent alien labor certification process is predicated on a set of objective criteria and so is the immigrant visa application process. Imposing arbitrary requirements that the aliens applying for the skilled worker classification possess English language proficiency at a certain level or at any level, or imposing any other skills requirements not stated on Form ETA-750 or ETA 9089, as certified by the Department of Labor, is contrary to the Congressional intent and is not supported by any statutes, regulations, precedent case law, or the Service own memoranda. As such, the Consular Officer and the Service’s conduct here constitute an abuse of discretion.
It does not appear that the beneficiary is qualified for the visa category he is applying for as stipulated by the ETA 750. The beneficiary does not have the language and qualifications to work in the United States. In view of the above, it appears that the approval of the petition should be revoked.
Counsel wants to bring to the Service’s attention an important fact that, unlike many other countries, the U.S. does not have the official national language. Counsel is aware that this may come as a shock to the Service and the Consular Officer who has adjudicated the beneficiary’s application for an immigrant visa. Although some states have adopted English as the official state language, Michigan, the state of intended employment of the beneficiary, is not one of such states. Counsel concedes, however, that English proficiency may be required in connection with cases of some skilled workers, such as those where English language proficiency is expressly required by their jobs (such as English language teachers, for example) or by an independent statute or state law (such as Registered Nurses, for example). Counsel’s own experience suggests that many immigrant visa applicants applying for visas have less than perfect or even no English language proficiency at all. Indeed, many required visa application forms can be completed in languages other than English and visa interviews are often conducted in languages other than English. If we are to deny immigrant visas to skilled workers with limited English language skills, are we to deny immigrant visas to skilled workers who fail to name the three branches of government? Are we to deny immigrant visas to skilled workers who fail to answer a few questions about U.S. history? Are we to deny immigrant visas to skilled workers who can’t name at least one Supreme Court justice? The answer is no. This is not what Congress intended. With limited exceptions, aliens applying for immigrant visas as skilled workers are not required to demonstrate English language skills. They are only required to demonstrate that they meet certain objective and expressly stated, not implied and arbitrary, requirements of their proffered positions. English language proficiency is not an express and objective requirement for the proffered position as certified by the US Department of Labor on the Form ETA 750. Therefore, English language qualifications of the beneficiary are irrelevant for the purposes of the beneficiary’s immigrant visa eligibility.
What happened? The approval was affirmed by the USCIS Service Center and the file went back to the consulate for a second interview. Hasta la vista, baby.
Puedes usar este tipo de prestamos inmediatos sin buró rápidos y seguros a para lo que quieras: Realizar un pago atrasado de otro préstamo.
Accedé a tu préstamo online de forma rápida y fácil. Préstamo rápido en Argentina. Completá un formulario breve para calcular tu crédito.
Un préstamo sin interés actúa de la misma forma que un préstamo que sí tenga intereses. Préstamos rápidos sin intereses en pocos minutos.
Tipos de créditos personales en línea. Si buscas un préstamo personal que te pida pocos requisitos y que puedas solicitar en línea.