The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019 (the Act) has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by a bipartisan group of representatives, as has a companion bill in the Senate. Essentially, the Act would eliminate the per-country limit for employment-based immigrant visas and increase the per-country limit from 7% to 15% for family-based immigrant visas. However, the Act makes no changes the number of family or employment-based green cards issued each year. There will be a transitional period from the current standards to reach those in the Act. For instance, in FY 2020, 15% of the immigrant visas in the EB-2, EB-3, and EB-5 only would be for beneficiaries from countries that are not one of the two states with the largest total amount of approved visa beneficiaries. This number would decrease to 10% in FY 2021 and 2022. What is the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act? One of the overall goals of the Act is to create a “first come,…
Read more detail on Recent Immigration Law posts –
Related news:
- FTC Ups Consumer Review Fairness Act Enforcement
- Gagging Gag Clauses under the Consumer Review Fairness Act
- Antitrust Procedural Fairness
- Lawyers Can Sue DMV to Challenge Fairness of Administrative Per Se Hearings
- Procedural Fairness in Competition Law: A Comparative Perspective, Thursday 10 January 2019 18:00 – 19:30 GMT, Centre of European Law, The Dickson Poon School of Law
- Fairness, Confusion Inversely Proportional
- Is Fairness in the Eye of the Beholder? Pfizer Citizen Petition Looking for Fair and Level Playing Field Between Biologics and Biosimilars
- The Case for Global Best Practices in Antitrust Procedural Fairness
- Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal … as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm
- Seventh Circuit finds that Issuer of Fairness Opinion Did Not Commit Gross Negligence
