LIA EB3 2010-2011遊說項目正式啟動

再接再勵，團結共進（http://www.lianational.org/latest-news/page-9）


---LIA EB3遊說項目緊急號召捐款！ 鑒於2010年中國EB3的遊說項目取得了巨大成功，
為中國EB3爭取到了3480個名額，比份額2687 多了近800個名額! 比08、09兩年的總和
多了近1000個! LIA EB3 項目組經過再次投票，決定立刻和遊說顧問---Bruce
Morrison續約，在2011年財政年度繼續保證中國EB3分到應得的名額，並利用Family
fall across 和其他渠道爭取多餘的名額。

前期六個月的合同需要$9000 ($1500 x 6)。請大家盡快到LIA EB3網頁捐款（http://www.lianational.org/Home/projects/eb3）。

支票請寄：
PO Box 2082, Santa Clara, CA 95055
Payable to "Legal Immigrant Association"

我們需要在10月底前籌集至少$6000 以開始合同。

鑒於EB3捐款人隻有100多人，建議捐款額為每人$100,最低捐款額為$50。

希望大家積極響應！
問題或建議請發信到：[e-mail]或電話：800-556-7065， ext. 3


2009年9月底，中國EB3遊說組借助LIA在遊說平台，聘用 Bruce Morrison（http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Morrison）作為遊說顧問，保證在2010年度中國EB3的名額不再短缺，並爭取超出份額的多餘名額。

Bruce Morrison 畢業於Yale 法學院，和克林頓夫婦是同屆同學，關係密切。畢業後成
為移民律師。之後當選美國眾議院議員，並在1989~1991年間任眾議院移民委員會主席
，主導了1900年移民法改革，創造了H1B program, 並使每年合法移民的數量從十幾萬
提高到100萬。他的立法經曆成就了他對移民法的獨一無二的理解。他的政府關係也幫
助他日後成功地遊說了多個移民項目。值得一提的是在90年後，唯一的一次大規模增加
綠卡名額的遊說項目就是Morrison 促成的---2005，他為護士移民爭取到了65,000個額
外名額。

所以，我們非常幸運能用低廉的價格（每個月$1500）請到Bruce Morrison 為中國EB3
代言。

一年過去，Bruce Morrison 憑借其在政府部門的人脈和對移民法名額分配的精通，在
EB3項目上遊說效果顯著!

Bruce Morrison 關於遊說和訴訟的總結見附錄。

首先，Bruce Morrison 確保了我們分到2687應得的名額。他在去年夏天要求DOS和
USCIS解釋過去兩年中國EB3名額短缺的原因，迫使DOS承認廣州大量的名額浪費是根源
，並承認短缺對中國EB3造成了很大傷害。更重要的是，DOS和USCIS都意識到中國的EB3
有專業人士代言維護利益，我們不再是任人擺弄的弱勢群體了。另外，Bruce Morrison
促使移民局公布了庫存數據，大大提高了排期的可預見性。這些，都為中國EB3達到份
額奠定了堅實的基礎。

更重要的是，Bruce Morrison 今年初成功地遊說了DOS,把幾百個中國family 的剩餘名
額分給了中國EB3。這是我們今年能夠超出份額的主要原因。雖然這不是全部的family
剩餘名額，但是這種操作時過去幾年沒有過的。僅這一點，就充分體現了Bruce
Morrison的遊說價值。

還有一些多餘的名額屬於灰色區域，可以用排期製定的誤差來解釋。在遊說代言以前，
我們遭遇的都是負誤差，現在我們有了正誤差。
現在很多EB3申請人在關注EB3訴訟。我們也真心希望這個官司能打贏，最好的結果是幫
我們追回08、09少分的2500名額。為此，我們中的一些誌願者為訴訟貢獻不少力量，包
括尋找訴訟律師等等。現在的律師Bob Pauw 是一個有豐富經驗的移民訴訟律師。我們
希望他能有所作為。值得一提的是，Bruce Morrison 雖然不參與訴訟，但是多次向Bob
Pauw 提供免費谘詢，幫他研究名額分配的條文。

但是，我們完全不同意有了訴訟就停止遊說的看法。因為訴訟還沒有成功的經驗，失敗
的風險很高。現在看來，即便是有Bob Pauw 代言，能勝訴的可能性也超不過50%。一旦
被法官駁回，即使能向上一級法院上訴，但是費錢費時費力，可行性就更低了。而且訴
訟的周期很長。對我們有利的裁決不是短時間內可以做出的。

遊說項目的效果是已經被事實證明的了，而且遊說是短期見效的。還有，如Bruce
Morrison 在他的報告所述，訴訟時為了過去的名額，而遊說是為了將來能多分名額。
二者缺一不可。

所以，我們希望那些支持訴訟的申請人也能夠支持遊說。
關於遊說，有些曾經是項目組的誌願者有先入為主的認識誤區，覺得遊說就是拿到名額
分配數據，哪個組織或個人拿到的數據及時或詳細，那麽就他的“遊說”作用就大。這
是看法是因為他們不了解華盛頓遊說的運作模式。有些政府官員，如DOS的Charles
Oppenheim, 對Public inquiry 的回複非常及時，但是並是說他的回複就證明你對他決
策的“有影響”。

我們是Bruce Morrison 8個客戶裏最小的一個，他不可能在獲得數據的及時性和那些每
天盯著排期的網友或網絡組織相比。但是，Bruce Morrison 是前國會議員，是移民法
的製定者，和Oppenheim 熟識20多年。他對政府官員的影響力和我們自己是不能同日而
語的。這也是為什麽他能爭取到family 剩餘名額，而我們隻能停留在理論分析而已。

所以，EB3遊說項目的通過事前的專業遊說拿到名額，特別是多餘名額，而不是事後的
分配數據。請大家不要被誤導。

感謝大家的捐款支持！
LIA EB3 遊說項目組

2010年10月18日

附錄：Summary from Bruce Morrison regarding EB3 lobby and litigation
The visa under usages in 2008 and 2009 occurred when we were not retained by
LIA.  We warned that monitoring of monthly results was required, but the
group apparently did not have the resources to retain us.
We began this project a year ago to press for the maximum possible China EB-
3 numbers that we could achieve.  Even before the project began, I had spent
the summer of 2009 pressing Mr. Oppenheim about the severe shortfall in
China EB-3s for 2009 and the reasons for it.  Early in our project I raised
the issue of family fall across and that many China family numbers had gone
unused in 2009.  That was the crucial fact that moved Mr. Oppenheim to move
China to ROW and to keep it there for the bulk of the year.  As the end of
the year approached, he was worried about how far over its allocation China
was (with the CSPA 300 deduction).  Although I pressed him to stay at ROW,
he indicated that the FB usage appeared to be very high and he feared that
he would not cover the extra EB numbers.  In the end, I was right and the
extra numbers were fully covered.  However, Mr. Oppenheim continues to
resist my arguments for an internal EB fall down regime that would provide
even more numbers to EB-3 because they are “not needed” for EB-5, EB-1 or
EB-2.  Moving him on this analysis would be a primary focus of 2011 work.
The lawsuit had nothing to do with our numbers in 2010.  The suit began
after most of the extra numbers were already allocated.  And the suit was
not considered by the judge till the last week of the fiscal year.  And the
decision was reserved, so there has been no pressure on Mr. Oppenheim from
the lawsuit.  However, there is no doubt that the suit made lobbying harder,
because Mr. Oppenheim resented the fact that his actions were being
questioned in this way.  I warned of that effect from the beginning. 
However, if the suit is successful, it will be worth it.  For that reason, I
have actively helped Bob Pauw from the beginning.  I consulted with him
about how the visa allocation system works.  He did not have nearly the
knowledge that I have about the system.  But he is a very good lawyer and he
has presented a good case.  The challenge is to accelerate the use of
numbers for pending cases, not to take numbers from one group of Chinese
immigrants to give to another group.  I developed a theory of “equitable
reallocation” that would move the cut-off dates ahead to readjust the
allocation between China and other countries to reflect the improper hold-
back of the cut-off in 200 and 2009.  This would allow the per-country limit
to be exceeded in 2011 to allow for reallocation.  Bob also has presented a
“recapture” theory—giving more per-country numbers to China in 2011 that
it was denied in 2008 and 2009.  However, since there were no extra overall
EB numbers in those years, the numbers would come from long ago and I am
skeptical about whether the court can recapture them in this way. In
addition to monitoring the visa allocations and providing lobbying arguments
that were successful in increasing the overall numbers, I was able to make
big progress on transparency at both DHS and USCIS.  It was our lobbying
that led to the creation of the I-485 inventory.  And I used that to get Mr.
Oppenheim to provide the pending demand reports that he now publishes each
month.  We have dramatically changed the quality of information to predict
and advocate cut-off date movement.  The next steps are the integration of
field office cases into the I-485 inventory and the creation of an approved
I-140 inventory to predict future demand.  I have moved both of these
projects forward this month in anticipation of a contract extension.  In the
future, monitoring of FB usage will also become important to push for fall
across usage.  And there are still arguments for better use of fall down and
fall across numbers to enhance the annual totals available to EB-3.  China
is starting behind the ROW cut-off for 2011.  It will stay there unless
there is forceful lobbying to move it up.  The lawsuit is about 2008 and
2009 and has nothing to say about that—and could result in China numbers
from  2011 being reduced to handle 2008 and 2009, rather than adding to the
total.





LIA EB3C 項目組

http://www.lianational.org/Home/projects/eb3

800-556-7065, ext. 3
[e-mail]

所有跟帖： 

• “與時俱進”看遊說，來年的遊說項目不是很有必要！恕我冒昧。。。 -好漢- ♂ (8754 bytes) () 10/23/2010 postreply 12:21:19

• 回複：“與時俱進”看遊說，來年的遊說項目不是很有必要！恕我冒昧。。。 -justchecking- ♀ (55 bytes) () 10/24/2010 postreply 17:57:00