GCforever1
09-15 01:08 PM
wow !!! freedom when your wife is in India ....go to strip bar and have fun:) you need to enjoy
Any ideas? (My wife and son are in india now).
Anyway, I will support IV wholeheartedly going forward. Of course, I got benefitted from it. I am a long timer, 2001, EB3.
Any ideas? (My wife and son are in india now).
Anyway, I will support IV wholeheartedly going forward. Of course, I got benefitted from it. I am a long timer, 2001, EB3.
wallpaper house 2011 Justin Bieber
designserve
09-04 01:08 PM
IMHO,Since the validity of the 797 starts by Nov 09,thet will take precedence over your entry now.I had a similar issue and asked an online question to
https://help.cbp.gov/.I had traveled to canada and my I-94 expiry was the visa expiry date(oct 08).However,my 797 was valid till june 09.
They told me that the 797 date was valid and I got a renewal after that till 2012.I believe you should not have an issue here....Now then, I am not the authority here too.
https://help.cbp.gov/.I had traveled to canada and my I-94 expiry was the visa expiry date(oct 08).However,my 797 was valid till june 09.
They told me that the 797 date was valid and I got a renewal after that till 2012.I believe you should not have an issue here....Now then, I am not the authority here too.
ajju
09-25 12:22 PM
Good find - shows the plight of legal immigrants.
A bit of nitpicking - actually the chart is underestimating the time for EmploymentBased / skilled immigrants wait - says 11-16 years to get citizenship sort of suggesting 16 years is the worst case scenario to get citizenship. Its a bit underestimate especially for people coming from India/China. I have seen many people (including me) on these forums who entered US "legally" ten years ago and still waiting for GC with no idea when they would finally get it. Some of them might finally get citizenship 20 years after entering the country "legally".
On the whole it shows the reality of legal immigration and its waiting times.
Add wait time or prev unsuccesful attempts of paplying 485... So you can add... addition 4-5 years., fore unlucky people like me to be able to apply for a GC Application :D
A bit of nitpicking - actually the chart is underestimating the time for EmploymentBased / skilled immigrants wait - says 11-16 years to get citizenship sort of suggesting 16 years is the worst case scenario to get citizenship. Its a bit underestimate especially for people coming from India/China. I have seen many people (including me) on these forums who entered US "legally" ten years ago and still waiting for GC with no idea when they would finally get it. Some of them might finally get citizenship 20 years after entering the country "legally".
On the whole it shows the reality of legal immigration and its waiting times.
Add wait time or prev unsuccesful attempts of paplying 485... So you can add... addition 4-5 years., fore unlucky people like me to be able to apply for a GC Application :D
2011 justin bieber 2011 shirtless
Beemar
12-09 12:46 AM
Thanks for many soothing words on my plight. But everybody is missing the point here. I am not complaining about red dots. It's the filthy language that was used in the comments that I am appalled at.
I guess admins can surely read all the comments that are being posted along with these stupid dots. They should at least expose the person. I mean, IV is a serious web site, isn't it? How can it tolerate such behaviour? In fact IV may be exposing itself to libel if it does not take any action.
I guess admins can surely read all the comments that are being posted along with these stupid dots. They should at least expose the person. I mean, IV is a serious web site, isn't it? How can it tolerate such behaviour? In fact IV may be exposing itself to libel if it does not take any action.
more...
pappu
07-30 10:25 AM
Pappu - I agree with you in totality that it is an opportunity wasted when people focus on the individual issues. But, after listening in on a couple of calls, I find the whole call to be not much of use as they always defer the question with 'we have asked the TSC to find out' or 'that is for the USCIS to answer'.
I appreciate a channel of communication and a watchdog for USCIS activities but when communicating regarding problems with USCIS, I see ombudsman's office as a level of indirection. They seem to identify problems, pass on as a report that gets nowhere or gets partially addressed.
If USCIS took cues and had allowed a conference call with the USCIS leadership directly, or if one of us (could be me but I need some ideas as to how to approach) could do such a thing, we could see far more benefit in gathering more significant problems and getting them answered.
I would rather hear the news from the 'horse's mouth' than listening to someone who barely has an influence. I would gladly stand corrected if history has shown otherwise.
USCIS leaders too have meetings where organizations can take part. But one has to go to DC and take part in them during office hours. IV has met with their leadership a few times for our admin fixes.
Other avenue to meet USCIS is via their state offices. I had passed this information to state chapter leaders many months ago so that they start building relationship with the office in each state assigned the task of interfacing with community groups like IV in each state. I know MI chapter had reported that they established contact but do not know if they pursued it further and if other chapters too succeeded in making progress.
These calls with Ombudsman are important because they are attended by USCS and probably other officials from DHS. It is a time to talk about policy matters, recommendations, response of these recommendations from USCIS, and delays in their implementation. That can help bring positive changes for everyone rather than questions about individual cases. Just my opinion.
I appreciate a channel of communication and a watchdog for USCIS activities but when communicating regarding problems with USCIS, I see ombudsman's office as a level of indirection. They seem to identify problems, pass on as a report that gets nowhere or gets partially addressed.
If USCIS took cues and had allowed a conference call with the USCIS leadership directly, or if one of us (could be me but I need some ideas as to how to approach) could do such a thing, we could see far more benefit in gathering more significant problems and getting them answered.
I would rather hear the news from the 'horse's mouth' than listening to someone who barely has an influence. I would gladly stand corrected if history has shown otherwise.
USCIS leaders too have meetings where organizations can take part. But one has to go to DC and take part in them during office hours. IV has met with their leadership a few times for our admin fixes.
Other avenue to meet USCIS is via their state offices. I had passed this information to state chapter leaders many months ago so that they start building relationship with the office in each state assigned the task of interfacing with community groups like IV in each state. I know MI chapter had reported that they established contact but do not know if they pursued it further and if other chapters too succeeded in making progress.
These calls with Ombudsman are important because they are attended by USCS and probably other officials from DHS. It is a time to talk about policy matters, recommendations, response of these recommendations from USCIS, and delays in their implementation. That can help bring positive changes for everyone rather than questions about individual cases. Just my opinion.
roseball
06-22 08:49 PM
I got mine done at Samsclub.....$4.99 for 2 pics and 0.40 cents each for extra prints.
more...
purplehazea
05-11 04:36 PM
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5398818
2010 justin bieber shirtless 2011
LongJourny
01-22 04:38 PM
I just checked my transfered h1b petition. It says reciepient date as aug, 23rd and work permit starting august 28. My previous company (A) fired me on 23rd. So, this is my case.
I also would like to remind you that after shifting to Company B I got my H1b visa stamped. This is the second time I am going for stamping for visa renewal.
Given that my h1 transfer recipient date is aug 23rd (same day I got laid off),am I still safe?
Please also let me know if I could use adv. parole if some worst happens and get my h1 renewal visa gets rejected. Please respond me as soon as possible. Thanks.
I also would like to remind you that after shifting to Company B I got my H1b visa stamped. This is the second time I am going for stamping for visa renewal.
Given that my h1 transfer recipient date is aug 23rd (same day I got laid off),am I still safe?
Please also let me know if I could use adv. parole if some worst happens and get my h1 renewal visa gets rejected. Please respond me as soon as possible. Thanks.
more...
GC_newbee
11-06 10:07 PM
Any other ideas/suggestions friends?
hair makeup justin bieber photoshoot justin bieber photoshoot shirtless 2011.
martinvisalaw
03-22 07:17 PM
(1) File a MTR? should I file this myself or work with my law firm on this? What is the effort involved in filing the MTR as I understand from the denial letter that I have until Apr 14th to file the MTR?
(2)Is there any other means to communicate with TSC that my RFE response was received at TSC within the 33 day time limit and hence there is no basis for this denial?
(3) Re-file a new 140 petition?
Definitely file an MTR/appeal if you are 100% certain that the RFE response was received by TSC before the deadline. CIS should reopen the case if it was their mistake. Immigration regulations specifically allow for this procedure. There is no other way to ask TSC to reconsider - they will require an MTR.
If it was their mistake, in theory you should not need to pay the filing fees for an MTR. However, the attorney needs to make it very clear on the filing that the case should not be rejected for lack of filing fees. The contract workers who open the mail might reject the case if they don't see a check. It might be safer to include a check if you are close to the filing deadline.
(2)Is there any other means to communicate with TSC that my RFE response was received at TSC within the 33 day time limit and hence there is no basis for this denial?
(3) Re-file a new 140 petition?
Definitely file an MTR/appeal if you are 100% certain that the RFE response was received by TSC before the deadline. CIS should reopen the case if it was their mistake. Immigration regulations specifically allow for this procedure. There is no other way to ask TSC to reconsider - they will require an MTR.
If it was their mistake, in theory you should not need to pay the filing fees for an MTR. However, the attorney needs to make it very clear on the filing that the case should not be rejected for lack of filing fees. The contract workers who open the mail might reject the case if they don't see a check. It might be safer to include a check if you are close to the filing deadline.
more...
vkrishn
08-27 08:13 PM
There is no point in moving the PD if they cannot process the PD's who are current. This is what is happenning now in USCIS. I would rather they move it by small amounts and process those who are current than give false hope to people!
hot justin bieber shirtless
qualified_trash
12-15 01:48 PM
My lawyer had the following lines on this issue:
However, on a positive note, you are eligible for a special benefit for persons born in India subject to immigrant visa retrogression issues. Since you have an approved I-140 visa petition, you will qualify for a 3-year extension of H-1B visa status, with subsequent extensions possible.
It appears that the 3 year extension may not applicable to all countries. If you are not from India, you may like to check. If you check, please post the results for other persons. Thanks.
LOL!!!
that is just your lawyer's way of sugarcoating the fact that you are screwed if you are from India. the 3 yr extension is available to everyone.
However, on a positive note, you are eligible for a special benefit for persons born in India subject to immigrant visa retrogression issues. Since you have an approved I-140 visa petition, you will qualify for a 3-year extension of H-1B visa status, with subsequent extensions possible.
It appears that the 3 year extension may not applicable to all countries. If you are not from India, you may like to check. If you check, please post the results for other persons. Thanks.
LOL!!!
that is just your lawyer's way of sugarcoating the fact that you are screwed if you are from India. the 3 yr extension is available to everyone.
more...
house Picture of Justin Bieber#39;s
help43
09-10 10:12 PM
H1-B amendment how many days it will take because my opt is going to expire in the month of december.
To get the h-1b appoval i have waited like 6 months.So how many days it will take for h1-b amendment?
If it got rejected while processing under h1-b amendment then what do i need to do to stay in the usa?
To get the h-1b appoval i have waited like 6 months.So how many days it will take for h1-b amendment?
If it got rejected while processing under h1-b amendment then what do i need to do to stay in the usa?
tattoo BRAND NEW Justin Bieber
GAFAAAAA
10-27 11:36 AM
you can make bird houses out of tables, surley that blue bird on twitter must land somewhere of a night on his cyber bird house when everyone has shut up for the night about how the jonas brothers suck. he/she probably goes home from work too you know.
more...
pictures justin bieber pictures 2011
abhijitp
07-08 07:48 PM
I was wondering if we have approached "Consulate General of India" and Ministry for Immigrant Indians (Aapravasi Bhartiya Mantralaya) and check if they can help us in this visa fiasco. Indian statesman and good enough in visiting America to get foreign investment at the state or central level, but where do they stand when the same disapora need their help to find injustice they face on the foreign land. Any thoughts?
May be we can get their help to gather support from pro India congressmen and senators
Sounds like a good idea.
May be we can get their help to gather support from pro India congressmen and senators
Sounds like a good idea.
dresses Justin Bieber and Shirtless
mariner5555
02-08 01:14 PM
Thanks for the info. but is it 180 days or 120 --there was a thread that said it has become 120 days before expiry or else it is getting denied ??
more...
makeup dresses justin bieber 2011
Leo07
05-14 01:18 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
girlfriend justin bieber shirtless 2011
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.
hairstyles justin bieber photoshoot
laborfd
10-15 02:06 PM
What is LUD? and how do we check it?
vxg
09-10 03:42 PM
Folks,
After more than an hour drive to a shitty town in northern mass Lawrence....no bottles please..cell phones be turned off...
Officer: Purpose
Me: Me approved my wife not
Officer: cases..
Me: Presented cases
Officer: Yes you are approved...your wife is pending
Me: Oh really that is a revelation....
Me: Why so?is she preadjudicated?
Officer: There could be many reasons...no she is not pre-adjudicated...
Me: What can we do to expedite as she is current
Officer: Nuthin ....I was loosing my temper now...
I said how long should one wait...I opened an SR I got a reply that they are doing additional review contact after 6 months..3 days later I get approval email...no one has a clue...the right hand does not know what the left is doing....my wife is kicking me on the foot asking in native language be happy with yours do u want to loose urs too...
Officer: gave a vague Monalisa smile...
Me: Well I guess that's it I didn;t know anything after driving 60 miles that I didn't know before...
On the way back got a mail from my attorney...he checked thru AILA and talked withan IO ...it seems her biometrics need to be redone...it is ordered and she shld get it in 2 weeks she will be current next month too...so keep fingers crossed...well my fingers are crooked and can't be straightened now...
Hope the info helps..
SoP
You do not need Biometrics uploaded for approval. My case was approved without it however they will only send cards after Biometrics are updated.
After more than an hour drive to a shitty town in northern mass Lawrence....no bottles please..cell phones be turned off...
Officer: Purpose
Me: Me approved my wife not
Officer: cases..
Me: Presented cases
Officer: Yes you are approved...your wife is pending
Me: Oh really that is a revelation....
Me: Why so?is she preadjudicated?
Officer: There could be many reasons...no she is not pre-adjudicated...
Me: What can we do to expedite as she is current
Officer: Nuthin ....I was loosing my temper now...
I said how long should one wait...I opened an SR I got a reply that they are doing additional review contact after 6 months..3 days later I get approval email...no one has a clue...the right hand does not know what the left is doing....my wife is kicking me on the foot asking in native language be happy with yours do u want to loose urs too...
Officer: gave a vague Monalisa smile...
Me: Well I guess that's it I didn;t know anything after driving 60 miles that I didn't know before...
On the way back got a mail from my attorney...he checked thru AILA and talked withan IO ...it seems her biometrics need to be redone...it is ordered and she shld get it in 2 weeks she will be current next month too...so keep fingers crossed...well my fingers are crooked and can't be straightened now...
Hope the info helps..
SoP
You do not need Biometrics uploaded for approval. My case was approved without it however they will only send cards after Biometrics are updated.
GabonpharmD
04-16 12:00 PM
See my answers in red
Thank you so much for your details answers. Thank you!!!!!!!
I will be filing with the company lawyers. I guess the company is wiling to hold me only to the minimum requirement of 90 days after becoming full time, before filing for GC because I've been working for them since last year. My company liaison between the employees and the company lawyers is the one who told me to just buzz him when I am ready after the 90 days full time and he will give the lawyers the green light to go ahead with GC.
Thank you so much for your details answers. Thank you!!!!!!!
I will be filing with the company lawyers. I guess the company is wiling to hold me only to the minimum requirement of 90 days after becoming full time, before filing for GC because I've been working for them since last year. My company liaison between the employees and the company lawyers is the one who told me to just buzz him when I am ready after the 90 days full time and he will give the lawyers the green light to go ahead with GC.
No comments:
Post a Comment