indio0617
05-01 12:04 PM
If i check the dates for the I140 at Texas service center............. it say october, 2006............ but here we have few ppl who have been approved from november, februray,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
is it like something random, or USCIS holds a lottery ............. i am just curious........
Yes, It is definitely yet another lottery.
Only one thing seems predictable with USCIS. All processes are slipping into gross in-efficeiencies, be it LC, I-140, name checks, 485 or citizenship. We can also credit them with having invented a very infamous terminology "retrogression".
is it like something random, or USCIS holds a lottery ............. i am just curious........
Yes, It is definitely yet another lottery.
Only one thing seems predictable with USCIS. All processes are slipping into gross in-efficeiencies, be it LC, I-140, name checks, 485 or citizenship. We can also credit them with having invented a very infamous terminology "retrogression".
wallpaper (Synchronize yamaha snowmobile
imranabdullah
07-23 06:15 PM
Another issue that I think people like me mght face is if we are already in our 7th year H1B. If we want to invoke AC21 without having EAD in hand, we have to apply for H1 transfer. Now if our employer does not gove I-485 RN or I-140 approval notice, how can we apply for H1B extension?
I think that is their strategy,
don't give I-485 RN, don't give I-140 Approval notice, Don't let them apply EAD/AP.........Is there any way out of this if we want to invoke Ac21 in this case?
have you used your checks for filing of application or did your employer paid for it.
When SC cashes your check they issue receipt and put receipt number at the back of the check. thru which you could track your case and get the status by calling service center.
and possibly asking SC to issue you another receipt...
I think that is their strategy,
don't give I-485 RN, don't give I-140 Approval notice, Don't let them apply EAD/AP.........Is there any way out of this if we want to invoke Ac21 in this case?
have you used your checks for filing of application or did your employer paid for it.
When SC cashes your check they issue receipt and put receipt number at the back of the check. thru which you could track your case and get the status by calling service center.
and possibly asking SC to issue you another receipt...
seekerofpeace
10-05 11:05 PM
that was hilarious GCN007...BTW my wife got approved to finally....
Years ago or should I say ages ago not even in the US of A but at Heathrow at the American Airlines counter (that time I was a student for MS) the lady was going thru my I-20 and was asking for additional documents et al...so I had this bunch of documents in my folder...and her eyes landed on my degree certificate...she asked me you have a degree from IIT and you couldn't get a job still ? that's why you are going for your MS....i was like well I wanted to do research....why not in India? I was like this is not even USA and this is my 2nd visit to USA (after the Christmas break in the 2nd year)....why are they asking so many questions and this is pre-9/11.....
I was like why is she harassing me....Do you have intentions of staying back in the USA after you finish your MS....I said no I plan to do my PhD in the UK...She gave me a ugly look and stamped my passport and let me go....
SoP
Years ago or should I say ages ago not even in the US of A but at Heathrow at the American Airlines counter (that time I was a student for MS) the lady was going thru my I-20 and was asking for additional documents et al...so I had this bunch of documents in my folder...and her eyes landed on my degree certificate...she asked me you have a degree from IIT and you couldn't get a job still ? that's why you are going for your MS....i was like well I wanted to do research....why not in India? I was like this is not even USA and this is my 2nd visit to USA (after the Christmas break in the 2nd year)....why are they asking so many questions and this is pre-9/11.....
I was like why is she harassing me....Do you have intentions of staying back in the USA after you finish your MS....I said no I plan to do my PhD in the UK...She gave me a ugly look and stamped my passport and let me go....
SoP
2011 2000 Arctic Cat TRAIL Z440
TwinkleM
01-30 11:03 AM
Hello Sac-r-ten,
Thanx a lot for your compliment. I had been following this forum online since 2007 july fiasco & this forum had given me lot of knowledge & helped me out to make the right decission whenever I was underguided or misguided by lawyers (very unfortunate though that we spend a lot on fee to give such professional people). I will always try to do my best if my knowledge can help any person like me who falls as a pray in the hands of immigration people.
Anyways, if you don't mind, can you pls. explain the reason on what basis did they deny your I-140 application. You did mention on education basis, but can you pls. elaborate the reason. I am really tensed about it at my I-140 is pending since more then 2.5 years now. I also received an RFE on it & havn't heard about it since then.
Your input might help me. Thank you in advance
Thanx a lot for your compliment. I had been following this forum online since 2007 july fiasco & this forum had given me lot of knowledge & helped me out to make the right decission whenever I was underguided or misguided by lawyers (very unfortunate though that we spend a lot on fee to give such professional people). I will always try to do my best if my knowledge can help any person like me who falls as a pray in the hands of immigration people.
Anyways, if you don't mind, can you pls. explain the reason on what basis did they deny your I-140 application. You did mention on education basis, but can you pls. elaborate the reason. I am really tensed about it at my I-140 is pending since more then 2.5 years now. I also received an RFE on it & havn't heard about it since then.
Your input might help me. Thank you in advance
more...
laksmi
02-18 02:33 PM
Is paystub needed When a person is on H1B and is out of project when AOS on 485.
I'm also in similar situation - my current project will also end by Mar 30th and its tough getting a new Project outside since my employer wants to make big money out of me (they keep fat margins) .... My H is valid till Sep 10 but it doesn't matter as soon as the current employer cancels it or asks u to go out of the country.
Do a H transfer immediately with some other company so that u remain in status...
Then file GC with that new company. GC can't be filed on your own - The PERM Labor and I-140 must need a employer and the 3rd stage I-485,EAD,AP you can file on your own.
I'm also in similar situation - my current project will also end by Mar 30th and its tough getting a new Project outside since my employer wants to make big money out of me (they keep fat margins) .... My H is valid till Sep 10 but it doesn't matter as soon as the current employer cancels it or asks u to go out of the country.
Do a H transfer immediately with some other company so that u remain in status...
Then file GC with that new company. GC can't be filed on your own - The PERM Labor and I-140 must need a employer and the 3rd stage I-485,EAD,AP you can file on your own.
nfinity
07-17 11:08 AM
I have jumped on this a couple times.
more...
yabadaba
06-22 11:32 AM
new memo from uscis
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrele...ling062107.pdf
Oh law quote:
"During the lead period from 06/21/2007 to 07/29/2007, people can make a direct filing or in old ways. Accordingly, the July 2007 EB I-140 and I-485 filers using the July Visa Bulletin can make direct filing to eather Texas Service Center or Nebraska Service Center depending on where their place of intended employment is located."
Bulletin quote:
"USCIS will accept Forms I-129F, I-131, I-140, I-360, I-485, I-765 and I-907 filed with the new “Direct Filing” location in advance of the July 30, 2007 effective date, that are otherwise properly filed."
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrele...ling062107.pdf
Oh law quote:
"During the lead period from 06/21/2007 to 07/29/2007, people can make a direct filing or in old ways. Accordingly, the July 2007 EB I-140 and I-485 filers using the July Visa Bulletin can make direct filing to eather Texas Service Center or Nebraska Service Center depending on where their place of intended employment is located."
Bulletin quote:
"USCIS will accept Forms I-129F, I-131, I-140, I-360, I-485, I-765 and I-907 filed with the new “Direct Filing” location in advance of the July 30, 2007 effective date, that are otherwise properly filed."
2010 88 Arctic Cat 440 Jag
ras
04-02 09:05 PM
My employer recd an RFE on Jan 8. The Requested Evidence is supposed to be provided in 12 weeks from the date of the RFE letter(Jan 8).
I am told that my attorny didn't respond to this RFE. Is it 84 days which means till April 2nd is the deadline when it is supposed to be answered. If that is the case I crossed the deadline by a day or two.
Can you experienced folks let me know if I crossed the deadline. Is there still a room to answer the ability to pay RFE?
my employer said he would answer RFE (ability to pay) if some financial adjustments are made. Is it ok and make this financial adjustment so that he can responde to the RFE inspite of the 12 week deadline just passed.
Will a delayed response for RFE for couple of days at USCIS does matter? Will they reject the evidence if they dont recieve in time?
Is it better to wait till the I140 is denied and then open an MTR? How easy and practical is it to open an MTR and successfully plead for the I140 approval?
Your early response helps me take a decision.
I have already filed 485 based on this RFE pending I140. that will go waste if I140 is denied.
I am told that my attorny didn't respond to this RFE. Is it 84 days which means till April 2nd is the deadline when it is supposed to be answered. If that is the case I crossed the deadline by a day or two.
Can you experienced folks let me know if I crossed the deadline. Is there still a room to answer the ability to pay RFE?
my employer said he would answer RFE (ability to pay) if some financial adjustments are made. Is it ok and make this financial adjustment so that he can responde to the RFE inspite of the 12 week deadline just passed.
Will a delayed response for RFE for couple of days at USCIS does matter? Will they reject the evidence if they dont recieve in time?
Is it better to wait till the I140 is denied and then open an MTR? How easy and practical is it to open an MTR and successfully plead for the I140 approval?
Your early response helps me take a decision.
I have already filed 485 based on this RFE pending I140. that will go waste if I140 is denied.
more...
nk2006
04-13 12:46 PM
I have recently switched the job using AC21. I have to move my 401K from my old previous company but here is the issue: in my new company I will not be eligible for the 401 till I complete 6 months with the new company.
If thinking of moving it to IRA account, please let me know what is the procedure involved?
I will really appreciate if some can suggest me what are my other options.
Thanks,
As someone already mentioned you can go for rollover IRA - most of major investment companies offer this (infact will be eager to get any business).
Its a bad thing that your previous company is asking to move funds - but in a way its a blessing in disguise. In many companies (and their 401k custodians like Fidelity) - they allow to continue your funds in the 401k even after you leave the company - but as a non-employee you would incur more expenses and/or closed for some investing options. So continuing in the older 401k is not a great option in most cases (unless your previous 401k had very good funds which are now closed for new investors). Rollover IRA's are also good for another reason - you have more investment opportunities. In most of 401k's the number of available mutual funds are limited - but in rollover IRA it becomes much more flexible (I have a Fidelity rollover IRA account and has many funds and also an option to trade stocks). When I moved from one of my former employers (a top software company) I was too lazy to do anything and left it there for next five/six years; later as I gained more financial knowledge I digged into the funds and fees and came to know how much more I was charged as a non-employee - then moved to my current rollover IRA.
If you are more adventurous, there are other options as well. You can rollover into a self-directed IRA that allows to invest you in small private companies. There are a few custodians who allows this. Lets say someone has 10K in former 401k account - rolling over into a IRA with traditional fin. companies like Fidelity will give you access to many mutual funds and stock; with a small set of specialized custodians you can invest this 10K in a startup or even in real-estate. The custodian helps in the documentation so that you and the new company are very clear about everything. The key is you cannot be the owner of the company or real estate that you are investing but you can invest in a friends company or real-estate. I went to this route for one of my account and invested in a friends company who own commercial real-estate - with a 8% annual return rate for last year I can say its my best performing investment account. Obviously this is not for everyone and need lot of leg work and an ideal opportunity to go for this - but thought of giving out my experience anyway.
If thinking of moving it to IRA account, please let me know what is the procedure involved?
I will really appreciate if some can suggest me what are my other options.
Thanks,
As someone already mentioned you can go for rollover IRA - most of major investment companies offer this (infact will be eager to get any business).
Its a bad thing that your previous company is asking to move funds - but in a way its a blessing in disguise. In many companies (and their 401k custodians like Fidelity) - they allow to continue your funds in the 401k even after you leave the company - but as a non-employee you would incur more expenses and/or closed for some investing options. So continuing in the older 401k is not a great option in most cases (unless your previous 401k had very good funds which are now closed for new investors). Rollover IRA's are also good for another reason - you have more investment opportunities. In most of 401k's the number of available mutual funds are limited - but in rollover IRA it becomes much more flexible (I have a Fidelity rollover IRA account and has many funds and also an option to trade stocks). When I moved from one of my former employers (a top software company) I was too lazy to do anything and left it there for next five/six years; later as I gained more financial knowledge I digged into the funds and fees and came to know how much more I was charged as a non-employee - then moved to my current rollover IRA.
If you are more adventurous, there are other options as well. You can rollover into a self-directed IRA that allows to invest you in small private companies. There are a few custodians who allows this. Lets say someone has 10K in former 401k account - rolling over into a IRA with traditional fin. companies like Fidelity will give you access to many mutual funds and stock; with a small set of specialized custodians you can invest this 10K in a startup or even in real-estate. The custodian helps in the documentation so that you and the new company are very clear about everything. The key is you cannot be the owner of the company or real estate that you are investing but you can invest in a friends company or real-estate. I went to this route for one of my account and invested in a friends company who own commercial real-estate - with a 8% annual return rate for last year I can say its my best performing investment account. Obviously this is not for everyone and need lot of leg work and an ideal opportunity to go for this - but thought of giving out my experience anyway.
hair 95 Arctic Cat Puma DLX 440 SN#
sunny1000
11-19 06:23 PM
Thanks everyone for replying. My I797 shows all the correct dates (ND and RD). Infact, the date online matches the notice date. So, I guess it is ok.
more...
sargon
01-26 12:32 PM
I am glad that the Admins have deleted it. It really was a stupid question about a specific race...
u are a rasam drinking gulty, right?
:eek:
check your facts again. racism is considered sexy these days ;)
u are a rasam drinking gulty, right?
:eek:
check your facts again. racism is considered sexy these days ;)
hot 2004 Arctic Cat Sno Pro 440,
stemcell
10-05 10:19 AM
dude, leave alone pr, i have a canadian passport, this cbsa (canada border services agency) lady one day asked me "who are you going to meet in canada?"
i could not believe the stupidity of this woman. So, i replied "mr. Dhurandhar bhadvadekar"..
She waited a second to digest it, then said, "okay..go..!!"..
lol
i could not believe the stupidity of this woman. So, i replied "mr. Dhurandhar bhadvadekar"..
She waited a second to digest it, then said, "okay..go..!!"..
lol
more...
house 2001panther440.jpg
gconmymind
10-29 04:25 PM
which service center?
Send email or call your consulate in India. They will either be able to update it or let you know what to do. You should be able to correct by hand when you go for the interview.
Send email or call your consulate in India. They will either be able to update it or let you know what to do. You should be able to correct by hand when you go for the interview.
tattoo 1990 Arctic Cat Prowler
sammyb
03-11 02:46 PM
great :D :D :D ...
I too work for my wife. Example of work, doing laundry, taking kid to his day care, grocery , cleaning etc... The specific answers are below
1. Can "A" work for his wife and also get paid in check?
- I get nothing, why should you?.
2. Can "A" have a second job in his wife's company and retain his original job?
- Come on man, her majesty's service has to be your first job.
3. Can "A" have a different occupation anywhere else on EAD not related to his original job role? and then can "A" get paid in check?
- No comments
4. Can "A" work for his wife's company and instead wife gets the check or paid? Is that legal?
- Every thing is legal, till you are caught. See Elliot Spitzer..
5. Can "A"'s wife open a company on EAD and also keep working on her H1B?
- Who is this "A" you are continously referring to. Remind me of Amitabh's song. Ek rahe A , ek rahe B, Ek rahe fateh, ek rahe hum.
6. Can "A" and his wife after EAD work for 2 different jobs if the job description/roles are different?
- No comments
7. Can "A" work as volunteer in his wife's company?
- Come on buddy, you volunteered for the service the day you got married.
8. Can a software analyst working with a software company work as a trainer in a training institute on EAD with I-140 either pending or approved?
-No comments
I too work for my wife. Example of work, doing laundry, taking kid to his day care, grocery , cleaning etc... The specific answers are below
1. Can "A" work for his wife and also get paid in check?
- I get nothing, why should you?.
2. Can "A" have a second job in his wife's company and retain his original job?
- Come on man, her majesty's service has to be your first job.
3. Can "A" have a different occupation anywhere else on EAD not related to his original job role? and then can "A" get paid in check?
- No comments
4. Can "A" work for his wife's company and instead wife gets the check or paid? Is that legal?
- Every thing is legal, till you are caught. See Elliot Spitzer..
5. Can "A"'s wife open a company on EAD and also keep working on her H1B?
- Who is this "A" you are continously referring to. Remind me of Amitabh's song. Ek rahe A , ek rahe B, Ek rahe fateh, ek rahe hum.
6. Can "A" and his wife after EAD work for 2 different jobs if the job description/roles are different?
- No comments
7. Can "A" work as volunteer in his wife's company?
- Come on buddy, you volunteered for the service the day you got married.
8. Can a software analyst working with a software company work as a trainer in a training institute on EAD with I-140 either pending or approved?
-No comments
more...
pictures Arctic cat engine casting
bigboy007
06-04 12:58 PM
i too think so they wont drag it more
dresses 1996 Arctic Cat Jag 440:
snathan
02-17 08:05 PM
Hello,
I have a question regarding my employment & H1B.
I was working for company "A" and my project ended in Jan and the company "A" gave me 1 month to find employment.
So I have applied for H1B transfer last week with company "B"
I got a call today from company "A" offering me a job.
Is it possible for me to work with company "A", while my application for H1B transfer is pending?
I want to join company "B" when H1B transfer is approved but in the meantime can I work for company "A" because it is very hard to find a job in this economic situation
Any help in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
As long as you have valid H1 with company A...you can work with them.
I have a question regarding my employment & H1B.
I was working for company "A" and my project ended in Jan and the company "A" gave me 1 month to find employment.
So I have applied for H1B transfer last week with company "B"
I got a call today from company "A" offering me a job.
Is it possible for me to work with company "A", while my application for H1B transfer is pending?
I want to join company "B" when H1B transfer is approved but in the meantime can I work for company "A" because it is very hard to find a job in this economic situation
Any help in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
As long as you have valid H1 with company A...you can work with them.
more...
makeup Arctic Cat Single Sled
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
girlfriend Arctic Cat Prowler 440.
SGP
10-11 10:25 AM
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
It seems that the bill S 1085 (the Reuniting Families Act (RFA) has become active again. I received e-mails from Senator Menedez and Senator Lautenberg talking about the bill. Senator Menendex mentioned the recapture employment-based visas that haven't been used in past years so that they may be used in future years. Among other things, he also mentioned that he will continue to address the concerns of employment-based visas in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. He is the sponsor of the S 1085 bill.
Senetor Lautenberg mentioned "Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The �Reuniting American Families Act� (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total."
It seems that Senator Menendez is doing a lot of work to bring relief to all immigrants including employment based. It may be brought in the lame-duck session in December.
Please call your Senators to co-sponsor/support this bill.
I have emailed The Congressman for 12th district of NJ (Rush Holt)
It seems that the bill S 1085 (the Reuniting Families Act (RFA) has become active again. I received e-mails from Senator Menedez and Senator Lautenberg talking about the bill. Senator Menendex mentioned the recapture employment-based visas that haven't been used in past years so that they may be used in future years. Among other things, he also mentioned that he will continue to address the concerns of employment-based visas in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. He is the sponsor of the S 1085 bill.
Senetor Lautenberg mentioned "Under current immigration law, employment-based immigration is limited to 140,000 visas, or green cards, per year. The process for obtaining employment-based visas can take years to complete, causing many of these visas to go unused. There is also an annual per-country limit that caps at seven percent the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country. In some instances, this per-country cap causes employers to consider country of origin, not talent, when hiring foreign workers.
A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would address some of these delays and caps. The �Reuniting American Families Act� (S. 1085) would recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years. This bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security to issue any unused visas from Fiscal Years 1992-2007 and in the future roll over any unused visas from one year to the next. It would also increase the per-country cap for employment-based visas to ten percent of the annual total."
It seems that Senator Menendez is doing a lot of work to bring relief to all immigrants including employment based. It may be brought in the lame-duck session in December.
Please call your Senators to co-sponsor/support this bill.
I have emailed The Congressman for 12th district of NJ (Rush Holt)
hairstyles 1971 Arctic Cat Puma 399
mermaid2084
11-21 04:18 PM
Thank you very much for your responses.
I would appreciate if you could send me the contact details of USCIS. In addition I have the following concerns:
- Will I be allowed to move back to my country with out I-94?
- Will fileing I-102 help?
- Should I make a police complaint regarding this?
I would appreciate if you could send me the contact details of USCIS. In addition I have the following concerns:
- Will I be allowed to move back to my country with out I-94?
- Will fileing I-102 help?
- Should I make a police complaint regarding this?
manderson
11-25 11:45 AM
that's right. if u switch to F1 now then u will pretty much throw away your GC app. Plus you can only go to school part time on H1 with explicit written permission from the employer (consult lawyer to see if additional paperwork is needed). But you can go full time on EAD.
I am also thinking of going back to school. The way I plan to do this is to activate EAD (via I-9 form with employer) and abandon the H1. You see, after the AC21 period, I will have leverage to negotiate w/ the employer. If he can accomodate my going back to school I will stick with him, otherwise I can find a new employer....
Ofcouse the risk is, if GC gets denied, then by law you have to leave immediately.
I am planning to pursue my studies part-time, while working fulltime on H1B or EAD. If you move to F1 visa, you will have to forego your immigration application. To apply for immigration later will require you to start all over again. It is unbelievable !! :mad:
So, depending upon your age and other factors, you should consider studying part-time or wait till you get your GC.
------------------------
EB3 March 2003
AOS RD: June 22 '07
EAD, AP Received
I am also thinking of going back to school. The way I plan to do this is to activate EAD (via I-9 form with employer) and abandon the H1. You see, after the AC21 period, I will have leverage to negotiate w/ the employer. If he can accomodate my going back to school I will stick with him, otherwise I can find a new employer....
Ofcouse the risk is, if GC gets denied, then by law you have to leave immediately.
I am planning to pursue my studies part-time, while working fulltime on H1B or EAD. If you move to F1 visa, you will have to forego your immigration application. To apply for immigration later will require you to start all over again. It is unbelievable !! :mad:
So, depending upon your age and other factors, you should consider studying part-time or wait till you get your GC.
------------------------
EB3 March 2003
AOS RD: June 22 '07
EAD, AP Received
jnraajan
03-27 11:59 AM
No Volunteers yet :mad:
No comments:
Post a Comment