rameshvaid
04-07 10:30 AM
You should be getting the cards with in this week. A friend of mine got them within 10 days of getting the mail.
Congrats and start celebrating.
rv
Congrats and start celebrating.
rv
wallpaper The fifth gas chamber was the
up_guy
09-25 02:03 PM
Porting PD Imp Approach & Question
Background-
Working with employer A have approved labor and I-140 EB3 and have a copy of all documents. Also have an approved EB2 PERM with employer B.
My questions are �
1) Can I transfer my H-1B to employer B to file new I-140 using EB3 Priority Date using recently announced premium service and I will tell employer A that I am on vacation ?
If I get new EB2 approval with old EB3 Priority Date then I will resign from employer A
If I will get rejected new EB2 with old Eb 3 Priority Date then I will go back to old employer A that I am back from vacations
Since this is premium service so turn around time is less than 4 weeks. Less than 4 weeks is not that uncommon to go on vacation.
Any comments or risk of this approach
Background-
Working with employer A have approved labor and I-140 EB3 and have a copy of all documents. Also have an approved EB2 PERM with employer B.
My questions are �
1) Can I transfer my H-1B to employer B to file new I-140 using EB3 Priority Date using recently announced premium service and I will tell employer A that I am on vacation ?
If I get new EB2 approval with old EB3 Priority Date then I will resign from employer A
If I will get rejected new EB2 with old Eb 3 Priority Date then I will go back to old employer A that I am back from vacations
Since this is premium service so turn around time is less than 4 weeks. Less than 4 weeks is not that uncommon to go on vacation.
Any comments or risk of this approach
eb3retro
04-21 11:54 AM
done..did my small contribution.
2011 gas chamber in Auschwitz I
abracadabra
07-06 11:13 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/06/30/DI2007063000525.html
Please post on the question on USCIS/DOS mess up, if there are enough people asking the same question then they migh answer it
Please post on the question on USCIS/DOS mess up, if there are enough people asking the same question then they migh answer it
more...
pak
07-19 08:25 AM
I am on H1B and finishing 6 yrs in Jan 2008 and my employer never applied LC. My wife is on H4 and her LC is approved.
We are applying 140, 485, 765 for my wife. I and my daughter applying 485 and 765. So our status will be on EAD.
I have another daughter aged below 14 so can not apply 765.
My questions are:
1. After the expliry of my H1B, wife's H4, Kids' H4, what will be our status?
2. What will be status for my daughter aged below 14 yrs.
I am filing my own due to lack of fund, pl. help gurus!!!
We are applying 140, 485, 765 for my wife. I and my daughter applying 485 and 765. So our status will be on EAD.
I have another daughter aged below 14 so can not apply 765.
My questions are:
1. After the expliry of my H1B, wife's H4, Kids' H4, what will be our status?
2. What will be status for my daughter aged below 14 yrs.
I am filing my own due to lack of fund, pl. help gurus!!!
WeShallOvercome
09-06 05:24 PM
Hi:
I am a july 2nd filer but had issues with my checks since my Bank account got closed due to fraduent activity. So not being sure if my checks would get cleared I applied second time on Aug 17th. Yesterday the bank was successfuly able ot channel my July 2nd checks to my new account and hence I need to withdraw my second application since my first one went through successfully. I had originally filed at NSC, but got transferred to TSC. Can someone help me on the procedure how to withdraw my second application and also not lose money from the checks on the second application.
Thanks in advance.
Gopi
I would wait for the receipts of my 7/2 applications to come and then stop payment on the second set of checks.
I am a july 2nd filer but had issues with my checks since my Bank account got closed due to fraduent activity. So not being sure if my checks would get cleared I applied second time on Aug 17th. Yesterday the bank was successfuly able ot channel my July 2nd checks to my new account and hence I need to withdraw my second application since my first one went through successfully. I had originally filed at NSC, but got transferred to TSC. Can someone help me on the procedure how to withdraw my second application and also not lose money from the checks on the second application.
Thanks in advance.
Gopi
I would wait for the receipts of my 7/2 applications to come and then stop payment on the second set of checks.
more...
gc_on_demand
05-19 01:42 PM
Is the intention to tie up ability to file I-485 with the newly proposed 2-tier processing of AOS cases i.e. step 1) pre-adjudication and step 2) issuance of GC once the visa numbers are available?
I am thinking to start solid campaign for EAD and AP when pre filling for 485. Its in very begining stage. Once I get how many can join hand we can start a funding drive and some aggressive campaign for it. DHS and DOL are studing how to resolve this on going problem for Highly Skilled immigrants.at the end of day admin may come with pre filling for highly skilled.
I am thinking to start solid campaign for EAD and AP when pre filling for 485. Its in very begining stage. Once I get how many can join hand we can start a funding drive and some aggressive campaign for it. DHS and DOL are studing how to resolve this on going problem for Highly Skilled immigrants.at the end of day admin may come with pre filling for highly skilled.
2010 gas chambers in the holocaust.
copsmart
02-10 09:30 PM
Congrats!
It�s good have a GC in this very bad economy.
Erase the H1 worries and enjoy your green.
It�s good have a GC in this very bad economy.
Erase the H1 worries and enjoy your green.
more...
pcs
07-19 02:48 PM
Translate it. Sign a letter of your compretence of English ? Hindi language & get it notarized. It is that easy. Do not waste a signle penny on translation. I have been doing it for ages.
I can give you the format on email.
Please contribute to IV instead
I can give you the format on email.
Please contribute to IV instead
hair Euthanasia gas chamber , in
eb3_nepa
01-25 03:53 PM
Hi,
I need to draw the IV website admin's attention to a minor style sheet issue which is making the site look a little bit "wonky" in Internet Explorer 6.0.
The CSS needs to be adjusted, as the "Contributions section" in the right most column is appearing midway on the page instead of way up top like it should in the other browsers.
I am trying to attach the image but it seems like I cannot attach anything with an image width of > 800 or an image height of 600.
I need to draw the IV website admin's attention to a minor style sheet issue which is making the site look a little bit "wonky" in Internet Explorer 6.0.
The CSS needs to be adjusted, as the "Contributions section" in the right most column is appearing midway on the page instead of way up top like it should in the other browsers.
I am trying to attach the image but it seems like I cannot attach anything with an image width of > 800 or an image height of 600.
more...
prout02
07-30 12:26 PM
I have read in this forum frequent questions about this - legality/enforceability of noncompete clause. Here's a recent court decision from Kansas. It talks about physician practices. No idea if it is applicable to other professions. But the four factors cited in the decision seem relevant.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Interestingly, it talks about 8 states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- that have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
Please take it for whatever it's worth.
======================
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/08/04/prsa0804.htm
amednews.com
Kansas court enforces noncompete clause
The court looked at a number of factors in weighing the contract's impact on the doctor, the employer and patient care.
By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Aug. 4, 2008.
A Kansas appeals court recently affirmed the enforceability of noncompete clauses in a ruling that puts the spotlight on issues that can arise in drafting or signing the employment contracts.
Kansas is among a majority of states that consider noncompete clauses legal, with varying case law or statutes as to when and how the provisions can be used. Eight states -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas -- have been known to outlaw or significantly restrict such clauses.
In June, the Kansas Court of Appeals upheld a contract that restricted a family physician from practicing for three years in the same county as the group she left unless she paid the clinic 25% of her earnings during those three years after her termination.
In its decision, the court analyzed four factors to determine the validity of the contract provision. The court looked at whether the restrictive covenant:
* Protected a legitimate business interest of the employer.
* Created an undue burden on the employee.
* Harmed the public welfare.
* Contained time and geographic limitations that were reasonable.
In upholding the noncompete clause, the court found that Wichita Clinic PA had a legitimate interest in protecting its patient base and the investment it made in establishing the practice of Michelle M. Louis, DO, when she joined the group in 1991. The court said the contract did not unfairly restrict competition or patient access because Dr. Louis had the option to continue practicing in the area, where other family physicians were available.
Gary M. Austerman, Dr. Louis' attorney, said the court essentially ruled that "a contract is a contract" while giving "short shrift" to other concerns, including patient care. Dr. Louis plans to petition the Kansas Supreme Court to take her case.
8 states outlaw or significantly restrict noncompete clauses.
"A doctor's right to practice and continue her relationship with her patients in this case is greater than the employer's right to restrain that right," Austerman said. "Patient choice is affected any time you say you can't take care of patients just because of a business relationship."
Austerman said Wichita Clinic -- a practice of nearly 200 multispecialty physicians -- was not harmed by Dr. Louis' departure, and the contract was aimed at protecting itself from competition rather than protecting patient care. He argued that the 25% damages clause imposed an arbitrary penalty on Dr. Louis and was not intended to apply to the income she would make when she left the clinic in 2004.
AMA policy states that covenants not to compete "restrict competition, disrupt continuity of care and potentially deprive the public of medical services." The AMA discourages any agreement that restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine and considers noncompete clauses unethical if they are excessive in scope.
Striking a balance
Gary L. Ayers, an attorney for Wichita Clinic, said the group's contract struck an appropriate balance.
He said the clinic hired Dr. Louis after she completed her residency and helped set up her practice with an existing source of patient contacts and referrals, and by covering administrative and overhead costs. But if doctors decide to leave and take a portion of their patients with them, the group would lose out financially without some reimbursement arrangement, Ayers said. As a result, patient care would suffer.
Restrictive covenants "allow groups to protect their patient base and in turn give them the ability to grow the practice to provide a vast array of patient services," Ayers said.
Doctors on either side of the negotiating table should consult legal counsel to know where their state stands on enforcing noncompete provisions, said Richard H. Sanders, a Chicago-based health care lawyer with Vedder Price.
Employers drafting contracts should make sure time and distance limitations are reasonable and reflect where the practice draws its patient base from, he said. On the flip side, individual doctors should not hesitate to negotiate and ask for a buyout clause or a carve-out leaving a particular geographic territory open.
Jerry Slaughter, executive director of the Kansas Medical Society, warned that doctors should take the contracts seriously. The medical society was not involved in the Wichita Clinic case.
"If properly constructed, [restrictive covenants] are legal and binding, so it's really about the parties going into it understanding it's a contract."
Discuss on Sermo Discuss on Sermo Back to top.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Case at a glance
Was a noncompete clause in a doctor's employment contract enforceable?
A Kansas appeals court said yes.
Impact: Some individual physicians say the provisions restrict their rights to practice in any given area and infringe on patients' rights to choose a doctor. Physicians on the medical group side say the contracts help protect the investment a practice makes in new doctors and its existing business, which, in turn, helps maintain access to care.
Wichita Clinic PA v. Michelle M. Louis, DO, Kansas Court of Appeals
Back to top.
Copyright 2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
hot Years in the Gas Chambers
krucie
03-17 01:41 PM
My thought was the same as yours in that by attaching my 485 receipt notice, and 140 approval notice when my spouse files for his 140/485, we can just inform USCIS at that time to connect our 485 applications. Based on that, once my spouse gets his green card, I would get mine as well.
I wasn't sure how it would work out if we waited for his 140 approval to come before we informed USCIS. Since he is from a non-retrogressed country, I was thinking that the safest approach would be to inform them sooner than later. You mentioned that I could file as a derivative once his 140 was approved. But the idea is not to file another 485 application for me. In my opinion that would confuse things further.
What steps are you taking in your case? I'm assuming that you and your spouse each have only one 485 application, each being independent of the other?
I wasn't sure how it would work out if we waited for his 140 approval to come before we informed USCIS. Since he is from a non-retrogressed country, I was thinking that the safest approach would be to inform them sooner than later. You mentioned that I could file as a derivative once his 140 was approved. But the idea is not to file another 485 application for me. In my opinion that would confuse things further.
What steps are you taking in your case? I'm assuming that you and your spouse each have only one 485 application, each being independent of the other?
more...
house gas chambers in different
gc_nebraska
01-11 11:48 AM
Siddharta ! My wife is a Canadian PR since 2 yrs and we live in the US, Can i apply for Canadian PR through spouse living in the US? Do you recommend any website for applications, is there any process please help.
Thanks in Advance
Thanks in Advance
tattoo gas chambers during WWII.
seebi
03-14 01:10 AM
http://www.murthy.com/mb_pdf/030609_P.html
See under Improper Denials of I-485 AOS on Priority Date Issue
I did check the USCIS website for the July 17, 2007 (reinstating the July Visa Bulletin) and July 23, 2007 (about I-485 fees) notices that are specified on murthy.com link you provided, but did not find them. So if any of you know how and where to get them from please let me know. Appreciate your help. Thank you.
See under Improper Denials of I-485 AOS on Priority Date Issue
I did check the USCIS website for the July 17, 2007 (reinstating the July Visa Bulletin) and July 23, 2007 (about I-485 fees) notices that are specified on murthy.com link you provided, but did not find them. So if any of you know how and where to get them from please let me know. Appreciate your help. Thank you.
more...
pictures sent to the gas chambers.
aranya
03-09 03:07 PM
Hi,
Currently i am working for a for-profit company on F1-OPT until April-07 (when my OPT expires)
This company will file H1B for me on April 1st for start date of Oct 1st and consequently, i will be out of job for 5 months (May-Sept).
Previously the company said that they will put be on Leave of Absense (LOA) for this 5 month gap until my H1b start-date kicks off on Oct 1st but now,
they are telling me that i will be terminated at April but will be hired again on Oct 1st and they will not put me on LOA.
1. Is there any way i can protect my job as they are terminating me now and then promising me to re-hire again on Oct 1st?
2. Should i ask for a job offer later stating a new hire date of Oct 1st?
3. Anything i am missing here? -- concerned that they first told me i will be on LOA but now telling me i will be terminated and again re-hired.
Note: The company is paying for both atorney and H1b fees and for this 5 month gap, i will be on H4, so no need to leave US.
Will appreciate any feedback on my 3 questions/concerns above - than ks.
I was in a similar position a few years ago. I had to be at home for 1 month.
From that experience I know that your company is approaching the situation in the correct/legal fashion. It is illegal for the company to employ you (even on LOA without pay or benefits) once your OPT expires.
1] Most jobs are at-will meaning there is no real way to "protect your job".
2] If they are filing for your H1 then the company will be submitting a letter to the government saying that they intend to employ you starting October 1, you can ask for a copy of the letter.
3] They must have talked to their immigration attorney who set them straight about LOA etc.
As others mentioned, if the company is willing to spend 5k to get you a H1, they intend to employ you after October 1.
As for "back-up H1", you can definitely look for a job and get a H1 from a different company also but on October 1st you will have to choose where you want to work. Remember if you choose to get "back-up H1s", you are essentially screwing one company and also wasting one valuable H1 visa. You are being un-necessarily cautious if not downright paranoid. However, if you are person who believes in "back-up tickets", "back-up house" in case "back-up car" etc. then go ahead, look for "back-up H1s".
Good luck.
Currently i am working for a for-profit company on F1-OPT until April-07 (when my OPT expires)
This company will file H1B for me on April 1st for start date of Oct 1st and consequently, i will be out of job for 5 months (May-Sept).
Previously the company said that they will put be on Leave of Absense (LOA) for this 5 month gap until my H1b start-date kicks off on Oct 1st but now,
they are telling me that i will be terminated at April but will be hired again on Oct 1st and they will not put me on LOA.
1. Is there any way i can protect my job as they are terminating me now and then promising me to re-hire again on Oct 1st?
2. Should i ask for a job offer later stating a new hire date of Oct 1st?
3. Anything i am missing here? -- concerned that they first told me i will be on LOA but now telling me i will be terminated and again re-hired.
Note: The company is paying for both atorney and H1b fees and for this 5 month gap, i will be on H4, so no need to leave US.
Will appreciate any feedback on my 3 questions/concerns above - than ks.
I was in a similar position a few years ago. I had to be at home for 1 month.
From that experience I know that your company is approaching the situation in the correct/legal fashion. It is illegal for the company to employ you (even on LOA without pay or benefits) once your OPT expires.
1] Most jobs are at-will meaning there is no real way to "protect your job".
2] If they are filing for your H1 then the company will be submitting a letter to the government saying that they intend to employ you starting October 1, you can ask for a copy of the letter.
3] They must have talked to their immigration attorney who set them straight about LOA etc.
As others mentioned, if the company is willing to spend 5k to get you a H1, they intend to employ you after October 1.
As for "back-up H1", you can definitely look for a job and get a H1 from a different company also but on October 1st you will have to choose where you want to work. Remember if you choose to get "back-up H1s", you are essentially screwing one company and also wasting one valuable H1 visa. You are being un-necessarily cautious if not downright paranoid. However, if you are person who believes in "back-up tickets", "back-up house" in case "back-up car" etc. then go ahead, look for "back-up H1s".
Good luck.
dresses people in the gas chambers
GCBy3000
07-06 12:00 PM
asked both the two questions posed by fellow members.
more...
makeup Entrance to a gas chamber at
JazzByTheBay
08-08 05:54 PM
In the same boat...
--
PD: 03/08/2006
RD: 07/02/2007
ND: 08/10/2007
Transferred from CSC to NSC: 09/05/2007
Oops - I am also in same boat:(.
--
PD: 03/08/2006
RD: 07/02/2007
ND: 08/10/2007
Transferred from CSC to NSC: 09/05/2007
Oops - I am also in same boat:(.
girlfriend magazine in 1922, page 595, describes how huge “Poison-Gas Chambers
QuickGreenCard
02-17 04:24 PM
I have H1 approval I-797 with me (received in last year quota) and H4 approval (which was applied before applying H1). Now I have a family emergency back home. I have to travel asap. My current H4 stamp in the passport is expired. So I have to go for stamping, either it be using H1 or using H4. Since I am unemployed at present I can't use H1 for stamping. If I come back on H4, what will happen to my H1 status? Will it be still valid to accept an employment or becomes void.
Please share your thoughts...
Thanks
Please share your thoughts...
Thanks
hairstyles Gas Chamber Doors -- A
lost
07-09 01:12 PM
its a good option to move from eb3 to eb2. Jumping from 2001 to 2005 on VB!
stuckinretro
10-03 12:18 PM
I received the same email for 131 waiting for the hardcopy.
Hi all,
I just got the below update from the USCIS website regarding my case.
Has anybody received this?.. What is the possible Evidence that they may be looking for?. Who receives such notice (Me or My lawyer)... Normally what response time would be given?... Please advise...
Current Status: We mailed you a notice requesting additional evidence.
we mailed a notice requesting additional evidence and/or information in this case. Please follow the instructions on the notice to submit the evidence and/or information requested. This case will be held in suspense until we either receive the evidence or the opportunity to submit it expires. Once you submit the information and/or evidence requested, you will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something further from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service.
Hi all,
I just got the below update from the USCIS website regarding my case.
Has anybody received this?.. What is the possible Evidence that they may be looking for?. Who receives such notice (Me or My lawyer)... Normally what response time would be given?... Please advise...
Current Status: We mailed you a notice requesting additional evidence.
we mailed a notice requesting additional evidence and/or information in this case. Please follow the instructions on the notice to submit the evidence and/or information requested. This case will be held in suspense until we either receive the evidence or the opportunity to submit it expires. Once you submit the information and/or evidence requested, you will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something further from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service.
morchu
04-29 06:14 PM
I agree, that for most of the cases "approved" is a safer approach.
But there can be some specific situations.
Lets say I-140 RFE received, to prove "ability to pay", and the response was not good enough to prove that. And before the I140 is approved/rejected, the employee quits and joins another company (after 180 days pending). The I140 is still portable, even if it is not approved, if the new employment matches AC21 conditions.
Even if it represents a small percentage of guys in this situation, it is still good to know that if a dieing company cannot support your I140 anymore because of "ability to pay", there is still hope.
This is a case where, the original employer still want to support your I-140, but "unable to" due to some other changed situations after filing of I140.
================================
Here is the answer from USCIS:
"Question 1. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140
petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending
180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-485 that has
been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence
establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated
within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue
relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on it�s merits. Then
adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or
similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.
B. If a request for additional evidence (RFE) is necessary to resolve a material issue, other than
post-filing issues such as ability to pay, an RFE can be issued to try to resolve the issue. When a
response is received, and if the petition is approvable, follow the procedures in part A
"
=============================
so that just proves that since you dont know whether you would get an RFE or not, it makes sense for beneficiaries to stick with the sponsor till 140 is approved. to beneficiaries, it wont matter zip whether uscis uses approvable or approved.
But there can be some specific situations.
Lets say I-140 RFE received, to prove "ability to pay", and the response was not good enough to prove that. And before the I140 is approved/rejected, the employee quits and joins another company (after 180 days pending). The I140 is still portable, even if it is not approved, if the new employment matches AC21 conditions.
Even if it represents a small percentage of guys in this situation, it is still good to know that if a dieing company cannot support your I140 anymore because of "ability to pay", there is still hope.
This is a case where, the original employer still want to support your I-140, but "unable to" due to some other changed situations after filing of I140.
================================
Here is the answer from USCIS:
"Question 1. How should service centers or district offices process unapproved I-140
petitions that were concurrently filed with I-485 applications that have been pending
180 days in relation to the I-140 portability provisions under �106(c) of AC21?
Answer: If it is discovered that a beneficiary has ported off of an unapproved I-140 and I-485 that has
been pending for 180 days or more, the following procedures should be applied:
A. Review the pending I-140 petition to determine if the preponderance of the evidence
establishes that the case is approvable or would have been approvable had it been adjudicated
within 180 days. If the petition is approvable but for an ability to pay issue or any other issue
relating to a time after the filing of the petition, approve the petition on it�s merits. Then
adjudicate the adjustment of status application to determine if the new position is the same or
similar occupational classification for I-140 portability purposes.
B. If a request for additional evidence (RFE) is necessary to resolve a material issue, other than
post-filing issues such as ability to pay, an RFE can be issued to try to resolve the issue. When a
response is received, and if the petition is approvable, follow the procedures in part A
"
=============================
so that just proves that since you dont know whether you would get an RFE or not, it makes sense for beneficiaries to stick with the sponsor till 140 is approved. to beneficiaries, it wont matter zip whether uscis uses approvable or approved.
No comments:
Post a Comment