vin13
03-09 01:45 PM
I cannot express my anguish.
I can understand the anguish. When you are really close and the bulletin does not move.
I can understand the anguish. When you are really close and the bulletin does not move.
wallpaper about Katy Perry#39;s quot;Hot N
bigboy007
06-30 06:54 AM
Good question are u talking about G325A i dont know whether this is the right way but what i did is filled up another form with rest of details in table col as you might need to do this 4 times as they need four copies of same form , dont copy it though as bottom left no.s differ , may be others can suggest a better approach?
shivarajan
08-11 11:16 PM
Doesn't matter if it moves back or not, since the mass fiasco hysteria began at Jul 2007, due to which, I guess uscis may even think of moving dates in hours (if waz possible) if not days after 2005 Jan date now, wherein EB-I apps counts even if dates muved hours will be hundreds (/thousands?) ;-)
We should not forget d fact which came straight from the horse's mouth...
"Wait times will be years/decades for for EB-I". (no more fiasco's again since preadjudications are happening is bad news for folks who missed fiasco and can't get ead for next decade or so)
:p
We should not forget d fact which came straight from the horse's mouth...
"Wait times will be years/decades for for EB-I". (no more fiasco's again since preadjudications are happening is bad news for folks who missed fiasco and can't get ead for next decade or so)
:p
2011 Katy Perry Photograph by
msp1976
07-13 10:12 AM
All,
Discrediting attorney Murthy does not serve our purpose.
If she is doing something good, that is generating more pressure on USCIS, then let's stop criticizing her.
Though she is taking the step a few days late, it is a step in right direction and lets support and thank her...
Everyone has their motives...What matters is the end product...
Discrediting attorney Murthy does not serve our purpose.
If she is doing something good, that is generating more pressure on USCIS, then let's stop criticizing her.
Though she is taking the step a few days late, it is a step in right direction and lets support and thank her...
Everyone has their motives...What matters is the end product...
more...
sureshj
06-08 02:18 PM
To solve the FBI name check problem, the following suggestions should be communicated to lawmaker if possible:
1. Increase the fundings for FBI name check. The major reason of name check delay is due to lack of resources for manual name check.
2. Introduce a conditional Green Card. Conditional green card is equivalent to green card, except with condition that it could be taken back IF AND ONLY IF the name check eventually fails to pass. Person with conditional green card enjoy all the benefits with normal green card, including transfering job freely, re-enter US freely, count years to citizenship, etc.
3. People wants to file 485 can ask FBI do name check before they actaully file 485 with a certain amount of filing fee. So that the delay for FBI name check will not impact 485 processing too much.
I could'nt agree with gcdreamer more...
Consider this...
1. FBI, I believe, has 2 rookie analysts dedicated to processing name checks and I heard USCIS pays $25 per name check.
2. FBI has distributed databases in NY, CA, FL, etc. that are not networked. So they have to request name checks individually out of these databases.
3. Name check ranks least in their priority list.
4. FBI has increased their name check criteria from 2 (First name and Last Name) to, I think it is, 7 or 8 (part of the first name, part of the last name and few other combinations). This increases the chances of your name generating "hits" and falling into this blackhole.
In addition to the above FBI (which normally receives ~1.5m name check requests per year) received ~6m in 2003. They are still recovering from that deluge. So now you see what's causing the delay.
For USCIS this works out fine, since they rake in 15% of their annual revenue from EAD/AP renewals. They do not want to mess with this "free money" and reduce the processing time. And to top it all they can transfer the blame on FBI.
In addition, to secure this "money train" USCIS cleverly issued a public memo earlier this year indicating WOM cases will be fought in court. To most this would have seemed like the end of WOM, but it is not. Applicants have since filed and won these cases. However the memo probably had its' desired effect...to discourage a majority of the applicants from filing WOM.
I think USCIS has to be made accountable for the money they earn. The $25/name check is just not sufficient. More funding is necessary so that FBI can allocate more analysts to the job and also upgrade their IT infrastructure. Excuses such as "ball is in FBI's court" is just not acceptable. "Conditional Green card" (as suggested by gcdreamer) is excellant idea to alleviate the problems the "name check" victims face over the ~2 to 4 years they spend in this blackhole.
PS: Just in case you are not aware of Senator Obama's initiative to address this problem here is a link where you can sign-up for whatever it is worth.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?nc082505&1
1. Increase the fundings for FBI name check. The major reason of name check delay is due to lack of resources for manual name check.
2. Introduce a conditional Green Card. Conditional green card is equivalent to green card, except with condition that it could be taken back IF AND ONLY IF the name check eventually fails to pass. Person with conditional green card enjoy all the benefits with normal green card, including transfering job freely, re-enter US freely, count years to citizenship, etc.
3. People wants to file 485 can ask FBI do name check before they actaully file 485 with a certain amount of filing fee. So that the delay for FBI name check will not impact 485 processing too much.
I could'nt agree with gcdreamer more...
Consider this...
1. FBI, I believe, has 2 rookie analysts dedicated to processing name checks and I heard USCIS pays $25 per name check.
2. FBI has distributed databases in NY, CA, FL, etc. that are not networked. So they have to request name checks individually out of these databases.
3. Name check ranks least in their priority list.
4. FBI has increased their name check criteria from 2 (First name and Last Name) to, I think it is, 7 or 8 (part of the first name, part of the last name and few other combinations). This increases the chances of your name generating "hits" and falling into this blackhole.
In addition to the above FBI (which normally receives ~1.5m name check requests per year) received ~6m in 2003. They are still recovering from that deluge. So now you see what's causing the delay.
For USCIS this works out fine, since they rake in 15% of their annual revenue from EAD/AP renewals. They do not want to mess with this "free money" and reduce the processing time. And to top it all they can transfer the blame on FBI.
In addition, to secure this "money train" USCIS cleverly issued a public memo earlier this year indicating WOM cases will be fought in court. To most this would have seemed like the end of WOM, but it is not. Applicants have since filed and won these cases. However the memo probably had its' desired effect...to discourage a majority of the applicants from filing WOM.
I think USCIS has to be made accountable for the money they earn. The $25/name check is just not sufficient. More funding is necessary so that FBI can allocate more analysts to the job and also upgrade their IT infrastructure. Excuses such as "ball is in FBI's court" is just not acceptable. "Conditional Green card" (as suggested by gcdreamer) is excellant idea to alleviate the problems the "name check" victims face over the ~2 to 4 years they spend in this blackhole.
PS: Just in case you are not aware of Senator Obama's initiative to address this problem here is a link where you can sign-up for whatever it is worth.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?nc082505&1
gc28262
06-10 04:05 PM
Done !
more...
harish
04-24 10:07 AM
Congrats Googler!
I just checked my status and saw my I-485 CASE APPROVED status.My Good luck and Best wishes to all the people on this forum on their GC.
EB2, NSC PD 10/02
I-485 RD - 02/2007
Approval Notice - April 23'08
Congratulations and enjoy the green!
I just checked my status and saw my I-485 CASE APPROVED status.My Good luck and Best wishes to all the people on this forum on their GC.
EB2, NSC PD 10/02
I-485 RD - 02/2007
Approval Notice - April 23'08
Congratulations and enjoy the green!
2010 Katy Perry - Hot n#39; Cold: cold
sanju
11-11 05:37 PM
I am not sure what lobbying efforts would do for us, haven't worked so far...
You have been waiting for your GC approval. Have you gotten it yet? No. Everything you have done hasn't worked. Then why continue to wait for the GC? Lets leave.
You see what I am saying. I am merely using your argument to highlight the ignorance embedded in your post.
I leave it up to IV core to followup on these ideas. I repeat, as I have done so many times, it is all about marketing + media presence. We won the July 2007 visa bulletin battle because of adverse media reaction to the state department. Grass roots stuff is all good, but no one will ever notice it.
I repeat, as I have done so many times, asking others to work on your ideas (which you seem to think are original and your own) is common wisdom on these forums. Next time, try to come up with something original.
.
You have been waiting for your GC approval. Have you gotten it yet? No. Everything you have done hasn't worked. Then why continue to wait for the GC? Lets leave.
You see what I am saying. I am merely using your argument to highlight the ignorance embedded in your post.
I leave it up to IV core to followup on these ideas. I repeat, as I have done so many times, it is all about marketing + media presence. We won the July 2007 visa bulletin battle because of adverse media reaction to the state department. Grass roots stuff is all good, but no one will ever notice it.
I repeat, as I have done so many times, asking others to work on your ideas (which you seem to think are original and your own) is common wisdom on these forums. Next time, try to come up with something original.
.
more...
logiclife
12-12 10:26 AM
We have asked an immigration lawyer this question. Someone even quoted all the sections of INA and CFR(code of federal regulations) to make the point -- that you can have regulation changed to file 485.
The lawyer was of the opinion that you need change in INA to be able to file 485 when dates are not current. It cannot be done with administrative changes.
The lawyer was of the opinion that you need change in INA to be able to file 485 when dates are not current. It cannot be done with administrative changes.
hair Katy Perry
shiva7
02-14 12:56 PM
Dear Administrator,
Thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to pay through paypal. I am proud of me for contributing $100.00 today.
I suggest that please keep an activated Paypal logo on our website so our comrades can understand that we could pay through paypal.
I read on our site that we could pay through paypal but didn't know how.
I am not so smart to learn that visa/mastercard/check logo will take me to paypal acoount login page. And so I didn't pay for a long time.
Thank you anyway. Let's continue to struggle.
Thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to pay through paypal. I am proud of me for contributing $100.00 today.
I suggest that please keep an activated Paypal logo on our website so our comrades can understand that we could pay through paypal.
I read on our site that we could pay through paypal but didn't know how.
I am not so smart to learn that visa/mastercard/check logo will take me to paypal acoount login page. And so I didn't pay for a long time.
Thank you anyway. Let's continue to struggle.
more...
ashwin_27
02-08 05:32 PM
I have lived in VA before and know how much of a mess it can be to commute between VA and DC.
However, for this specific event, would local members or those who have had experience attending advocacy days last year recommend to solely use public transport to get to the DC/Cap Hill area or would renting a car be of any help. I was thinking of just renting a car to just get from airport to place of stay and then use public transport on Mon/Tue to get to DC.
LOOK FORWARD TO SUGGESTIONS as I need to plan my travel.
However, for this specific event, would local members or those who have had experience attending advocacy days last year recommend to solely use public transport to get to the DC/Cap Hill area or would renting a car be of any help. I was thinking of just renting a car to just get from airport to place of stay and then use public transport on Mon/Tue to get to DC.
LOOK FORWARD TO SUGGESTIONS as I need to plan my travel.
hot Katyperry HOT Model
vin13
11-11 01:46 PM
I'm willing to send this to all the congressman/senators in Texas. Since I'm new to this game, is email better or snail mail? Or is personal contact expected?
Thanks.
Contacting personally is the best. You may not always get a chance to meet the congressman. But atleast get an appointment with an aide who deals with immigration. Some of them would have offices in several towns. Choose the one close to you. Meet in person and explain the situation and give them the letter. Do not go in a big group. 1 or 2 members would be ideal. Lot of the congressman may not know much about the process. so you need to keep it simple with less technical terms.
Thanks.
Contacting personally is the best. You may not always get a chance to meet the congressman. But atleast get an appointment with an aide who deals with immigration. Some of them would have offices in several towns. Choose the one close to you. Meet in person and explain the situation and give them the letter. Do not go in a big group. 1 or 2 members would be ideal. Lot of the congressman may not know much about the process. so you need to keep it simple with less technical terms.
more...
house Katy Perry - Hot N Cold
BharatPremi
03-17 02:03 PM
Are you saying EB3-India visa date will be set as Jan 2004 by USCIS some time soon? I thought they kept saying that EB3-India dates would move very slowly only. So from the current Oct 2001 to Jan 2004 is a very long and narrow road.
Applicants with PD before January First 2004 will mostly be current by December 2008 end. That is what I belive, USCIS will head towards. If it will not happen than do not kill me.:) Ultimately we all are in USCIS's lap..
Applicants with PD before January First 2004 will mostly be current by December 2008 end. That is what I belive, USCIS will head towards. If it will not happen than do not kill me.:) Ultimately we all are in USCIS's lap..
tattoo Katy Perry quot;Hot N Coldquot; (Video
ashkam
07-24 06:54 PM
Only the ones who were on OPT.
I was on OPT but my I140 has a different number than the one on my OPT.
I was on OPT but my I140 has a different number than the one on my OPT.
more...
pictures Katy Perry - Hot N Cold
user1205
08-15 05:38 PM
The spill over goes from EB2 ROW to EB3 ROW to EB2 India to EB3 India .. at least that's how some people explained it.
Also I'm pretty sure country quota of 7% is for all EB categories combined.
I guess the logic of USCIS is beyond logic and rules.
Also I'm pretty sure country quota of 7% is for all EB categories combined.
I guess the logic of USCIS is beyond logic and rules.
dresses katy perry hot n cold pictures
jonty_11
09-10 03:08 PM
so this bill is dead?
more...
makeup Katy Perry is the 24 year old
gc28262
06-10 11:06 PM
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
girlfriend (HQ, HD, Iphone) Katy
DianaSteve
10-29 05:36 PM
Sept 2001
EB3 India
LC approved April 2007
I-140 Pending
I-485 Pending
EB3 India
LC approved April 2007
I-140 Pending
I-485 Pending
hairstyles Katy Perry / Hot N Cold12.
pbojja
12-10 11:45 AM
With all the porting nonsense going on eb2 will move backward and eb3 will inch forward slowly. We might end up with eb2 and eb3 in 2002. congrats to all the people who ported, the only thing you accomplished is you made sure eb2 does not progress (it does not mean you have have moved forward by porting, it just means that you have made sure you have prevented original eb2 guys from getting green card), the people who ported wont gain any benefit but they will make it worse for everyone, they have to file a second i140 which will take at least another 1 year to clear and after 1 year when the ported 140's clear the eb2 will go back to 2002. You have also accomplished another great feat, DOL is going to make it impossible to file eb2 in IT jobs so even genuine people are screwed. Before people start giving red dots and justifying there porting I have an message for you, your behavior is no different from the people who did labor substitution, the end result was DOL ended labor substitution and the result of all this porting is DOL has made it impossible to get eb2 even for genuine cases. Just because others are doing it does not mean you can do it, obviously it is wrong therefore dol removed labor substitution and now dol is making it impossible to get eb2 for IT jobs even for genuine cases. 90 % of people doing this porting are desi consulting employees, they wine and complain about desi consulting companies as blood suckers (justifiably) but they themselves are bloodsuckers on the EB2 community by doing this eb3 to eb2 porting.
Stop the non-sense . As if USCIS-DOL knows exactly how many portings are going on ..do you think all the movement of this dates make sense ? just check last year movements .. they have no theory no logic or no numbers they just move with no logic ... At the end of year they move to 2006 or 2007and back to 2003 next year ..
I m EB2 2006 and I have no problems with portings ..go for it EB3 folks ..I know it will be a year or more process but worth it , I think EB3 early 2000 folks deserve GC than a 2006-2007 EB2 folks(Dont think you are genious just because you are EB2 ..we know we all do same jobs).
I m ready for reds and dont care a bit .
Stop the non-sense . As if USCIS-DOL knows exactly how many portings are going on ..do you think all the movement of this dates make sense ? just check last year movements .. they have no theory no logic or no numbers they just move with no logic ... At the end of year they move to 2006 or 2007and back to 2003 next year ..
I m EB2 2006 and I have no problems with portings ..go for it EB3 folks ..I know it will be a year or more process but worth it , I think EB3 early 2000 folks deserve GC than a 2006-2007 EB2 folks(Dont think you are genious just because you are EB2 ..we know we all do same jobs).
I m ready for reds and dont care a bit .
singhsa3
02-21 02:08 PM
Can some expert do the following analysis:
a) How many projected EB2+EB3 (yes combined) for India for period 2003 and before, 2004 , 2005, 2006.
a) How many projected EB2+EB3 (yes combined) for ROW for period 2003 and before, 2004 , 2005, 2006.
The reason I am requesting to combine EB2 and EB3 is that it is impossible to know which labor was filled under which category, thus no point in doing that division.
a) How many projected EB2+EB3 (yes combined) for India for period 2003 and before, 2004 , 2005, 2006.
a) How many projected EB2+EB3 (yes combined) for ROW for period 2003 and before, 2004 , 2005, 2006.
The reason I am requesting to combine EB2 and EB3 is that it is impossible to know which labor was filled under which category, thus no point in doing that division.
pappu
06-10 12:28 PM
WAKE UP CALL FOR THOSE STILL SITTING ON THE SIDELINES
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).
On Tuesday, when we were on the Hill doing meetings during Advocacy days, we were informed by the senior Senate office that an amendment to prevent H1 and work authorizations is in the works in the Tax bill. We immediately requested this office to oppose this amendment. Senator office expressed full support for us and shared with us that the Senator's office has already expressed opposition to such an amendment.
We would like everyone to know that just because someone has EAD, it does not mean we are in safe haven. There is no safe haven till we have approved green cards. And for those who think that they don't need to participate actively, this is a wake up call.
We have also learned that this is degree 1 amendment. This means it will be voted on on the Senate floor even when it is non-germane to the bill. We have also learned that if such an amendment comes up for vote during this difficult political climate, it appears that such an amendment will have 70 votes in the senate which makes each one of us extremely vulnerable to be forced out. Everyone on H1, L1, J1 or EAD will risk the renewal of their current application status.
IV is working on defeating this amendment. Please stay tuned for further updates.
On Tuesday, Mr. Sanders sponsored an amendment S.AMDT.4319 in bill H.R.4213
AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S4754
COSPONSORS(2):
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] - 6/9/2010
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 6/9/2010
Source: Congressional Record - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1119eE0Na:e98:)
SA 4319. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4213, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ America Act''.
(b) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not approve a petition by an employer for any visa authorizing employment in the United States unless the employer has provided written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that--
(1) the employer has not provided a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the alien is scheduled to be hired; and
(2) the employer does not intend to provide a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to such Act.
(c) Effect of Mass Layoff.--If an employer provides a notice of a mass layoff pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act after the approval of a visa described in subsection (b), any visas approved during the most recent 12-month period for such employer shall expire on the date that is 60 days after the date on which such notice is provided. The expiration of a visa under this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.
(d) Notice Requirement.--Upon receiving notification of a mass layoff from an employer, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall inform each employee whose visa is scheduled to expire under subsection (c)--
(1) the date on which such individual will no longer be authorized to work in the United States; and
(2) the date on which such individual will be required to leave the United States unless the individual is otherwise authorized to remain in the United States.
(e) Exemption.--An employer shall be exempt from the requirements under this section if the employer provides written certification, under penalty of perjury, to the Secretary of Labor that the total number of the employer's workers who are United States citizens and are working in the United States have not been, and will not be, reduced as a result of a mass layoff described in subsection (c).
(f) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Labor shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section, including a requirement that employers provide notice to the Secretary of Homeland Security of a mass layoff (as defined in section 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. 2101)).