natrajs
03-06 02:58 PM
yes EB3 India. I think when I look back, its just a matter of luck. Once it was RFE, second time I got a second finger printing and third time they just did'nt pick it up. But USCIS has been very promptful in approving my EADs and AP. I could be very well one of the oldest processing case sitting in the TSC shelf.
(1700 days)
Since the Name check mess is cleared, You will get it soon
(1700 days)
Since the Name check mess is cleared, You will get it soon
wallpaper Lifted Nissan Titan King Cab. 2004 Nissan Titan King Cab.
aadimanav
12-20 06:33 PM
I found out from discussion about the USCIS Expedite service:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=38a127720928f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=a9243529fdb7e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD
"
All expedite requests are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and are granted at the discretion of the Director. The criteria are as follows:
* Severe financial loss to company or individual
* Extreme emergent situation
* Humanitarian situation
* Nonprofit status of requesting organization in furtherance of the cultural and social interests of the United States
* Department of Defense of National Interest Situation (Note: Request must come from official United States Government entity and state that delay will be detrimental to our Government)
* USCIS error
* Compelling interest of USCIS
If your case is at a local office at the time you need to make your emergency request, please go to the local office in person to make your request. Please be sure to take all supporting documentation with you.
If your case is at one of our Service Centers or the National Benefits Center, please call customer service at 1-800-375-5283 to receive further instructions on where and how to send your request.
"
I am not sure this is applicable in case of Green Card too even when the dates are not current for your category.
I guess 99.99% won't able to use it, but at least it will be helpful for 0.01% people.
It appears that this person (http://www..com/member/kurup65/) has been successful to get his GC using this expedite service (EB3 India PD: Nov 2005)
She mentioned:
"We (my husband and I) requested expedite request due to extreme emergency situation and USCIS approved it. Luckily things work out for us. Can't say too much other than that. Thanks for all the well wishes....."
Source:
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/52168049/
ENJOY!!!!
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=38a127720928f010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=a9243529fdb7e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190a RCRD
"
All expedite requests are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and are granted at the discretion of the Director. The criteria are as follows:
* Severe financial loss to company or individual
* Extreme emergent situation
* Humanitarian situation
* Nonprofit status of requesting organization in furtherance of the cultural and social interests of the United States
* Department of Defense of National Interest Situation (Note: Request must come from official United States Government entity and state that delay will be detrimental to our Government)
* USCIS error
* Compelling interest of USCIS
If your case is at a local office at the time you need to make your emergency request, please go to the local office in person to make your request. Please be sure to take all supporting documentation with you.
If your case is at one of our Service Centers or the National Benefits Center, please call customer service at 1-800-375-5283 to receive further instructions on where and how to send your request.
"
I am not sure this is applicable in case of Green Card too even when the dates are not current for your category.
I guess 99.99% won't able to use it, but at least it will be helpful for 0.01% people.
It appears that this person (http://www..com/member/kurup65/) has been successful to get his GC using this expedite service (EB3 India PD: Nov 2005)
She mentioned:
"We (my husband and I) requested expedite request due to extreme emergency situation and USCIS approved it. Luckily things work out for us. Can't say too much other than that. Thanks for all the well wishes....."
Source:
http://www..com/discussion-forums/i485-1/52168049/
ENJOY!!!!
singhsa3
08-14 10:52 PM
Employment Based (EB) Green Card (GC) Laws
• The yearly GC quota is 140K. This includes GC for spouse and children. On an average, GCs are given to ~60K families.
• Each country is allotted 7% (of 140K) GCs (equally distributed among EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3) plus any unused visa from other countries. For India, average numbers of EB GCs issued in last seven years were 32K (~12K families).
• As per USCIS Ombudsman report
o Between 2001-07, USCIS was not able process all applications and hence ~155K GCs went waste as unused GCs in a year can not be reused in following years. This was most likely due to resource constraints.
o The report estimates the submission of 500K-750K (yes 500K+) AOS applications between June 1 and August 17 2007.
o FBI security checks may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits.
• There were ~200K pending EB Adjustment of Status (AOS) or I-1485 applications as of June 1st.
• So far EAD renewal has been taking around 3 months. Due to the volume of applications, EAD renewal may take 3-9 months. Thus, you may have to apply for renewal more frequently.
• FBI security check backlog is likely to get worse, because the August USCIS fee increase has prompted a 50 percent rise in new naturalization applications so far this year.
• EB Immigration reform does not have enough support in Congress (failure of SKILL, STEM ..). As a matter of fact, it does not even get enough support to make it debatable, let alone final voting.
• The laws need to be changed and the process improved to fix the situation.
What does it mean?
• There will be around 1Million AOS/I-485) applications by Aug 17 which will take 1M/140K = 7+ years to clear the backlog. Thus, late priority dates will remain retrogressed for several years.
• Some, who could not file AOS by 08/17, may have to wait for several years (5+ years).
• Longer EAD/AP renewals cycle and 1 year validity may have the following affects.
o You will have to stop working, if your EAD is not renewed in time.
o Several employers (and rightly so) may view EAD as a temporary permit and may be reluctant to hire you.
• You have to be in the same position with same job responsibilities for an indefinite time period, otherwise your GC application will be rejected.
• If you were unmarried at the time of filing and planning to bring spouse to the USA upon marriage, you will need to continue on current status (e.g. H-1B) or wait till your PD become current.
Immigration Voice (IV) Executive and Legislative Efforts
• Lobbying is an efficient tool to influence law and rule making.
• IV was very active in lobbying for CIR 2006, which was passed in senate.
• IV grass-root effort (flower campaign + San Jose Rally) was an important reason for retraction of July Visa Bulletin.
• Due to upcoming presidential elections, next congress session in October’07 may be our only window of opportunity for several years to influence the lawmakers.
Your options: a) Struggle for several years b) Leave USA c) Help yourself by joining IV
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/WashingtonDC_IV_Rally_w_FactSheet.doc
• The yearly GC quota is 140K. This includes GC for spouse and children. On an average, GCs are given to ~60K families.
• Each country is allotted 7% (of 140K) GCs (equally distributed among EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3) plus any unused visa from other countries. For India, average numbers of EB GCs issued in last seven years were 32K (~12K families).
• As per USCIS Ombudsman report
o Between 2001-07, USCIS was not able process all applications and hence ~155K GCs went waste as unused GCs in a year can not be reused in following years. This was most likely due to resource constraints.
o The report estimates the submission of 500K-750K (yes 500K+) AOS applications between June 1 and August 17 2007.
o FBI security checks may be the single biggest obstacle to the timely and efficient delivery of immigration benefits.
• There were ~200K pending EB Adjustment of Status (AOS) or I-1485 applications as of June 1st.
• So far EAD renewal has been taking around 3 months. Due to the volume of applications, EAD renewal may take 3-9 months. Thus, you may have to apply for renewal more frequently.
• FBI security check backlog is likely to get worse, because the August USCIS fee increase has prompted a 50 percent rise in new naturalization applications so far this year.
• EB Immigration reform does not have enough support in Congress (failure of SKILL, STEM ..). As a matter of fact, it does not even get enough support to make it debatable, let alone final voting.
• The laws need to be changed and the process improved to fix the situation.
What does it mean?
• There will be around 1Million AOS/I-485) applications by Aug 17 which will take 1M/140K = 7+ years to clear the backlog. Thus, late priority dates will remain retrogressed for several years.
• Some, who could not file AOS by 08/17, may have to wait for several years (5+ years).
• Longer EAD/AP renewals cycle and 1 year validity may have the following affects.
o You will have to stop working, if your EAD is not renewed in time.
o Several employers (and rightly so) may view EAD as a temporary permit and may be reluctant to hire you.
• You have to be in the same position with same job responsibilities for an indefinite time period, otherwise your GC application will be rejected.
• If you were unmarried at the time of filing and planning to bring spouse to the USA upon marriage, you will need to continue on current status (e.g. H-1B) or wait till your PD become current.
Immigration Voice (IV) Executive and Legislative Efforts
• Lobbying is an efficient tool to influence law and rule making.
• IV was very active in lobbying for CIR 2006, which was passed in senate.
• IV grass-root effort (flower campaign + San Jose Rally) was an important reason for retraction of July Visa Bulletin.
• Due to upcoming presidential elections, next congress session in October’07 may be our only window of opportunity for several years to influence the lawmakers.
Your options: a) Struggle for several years b) Leave USA c) Help yourself by joining IV
http://immigrationvoice.org/media/forums/iv/WashingtonDC_IV_Rally_w_FactSheet.doc
2011 2007 Nissan Titan
.jpg "2008 Nissan Titan Le Riverside, Ca")
anoopraj2010
07-30 11:11 PM
First of all, lets hope nothing happens to you. At this time i suggest waiting, something might come up later this year or early next year with reference to making use of unused visa numbers, if this happens, your wifes date will become current and her I-485 will get approved. Unfortunately the petition dies with the petitioner. However in the case of family based I-130 petitions, The Attorney General may in his discretion reinstate the approval of your family-based visa. The Attorney General may exercise favorable discretion where "for humanitarian reasons revocation would be inappropriate." 8 C.RR. Sec. 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C).
Thank you for your valuable input.
So in other words, visa numbers for the entire family are NOT assigned right away with the family if one has to go for an interview. The worst part was that the interview was due to a missing medical which was filed by us but misplaced by USCIS.
Re. 8 C.RR. Sec. 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C) is for Family based visa, hers is EB based (piggy backing on mine) Does this mean I should really consider filing a 130 to convert to family based?
Congressman can't help in ending this "humanitarian" trauma while I am still alive?
Thank you for your valuable input.
So in other words, visa numbers for the entire family are NOT assigned right away with the family if one has to go for an interview. The worst part was that the interview was due to a missing medical which was filed by us but misplaced by USCIS.
Re. 8 C.RR. Sec. 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C) is for Family based visa, hers is EB based (piggy backing on mine) Does this mean I should really consider filing a 130 to convert to family based?
Congressman can't help in ending this "humanitarian" trauma while I am still alive?
more...
sabbygirl99
03-28 04:42 PM
:D ....an immigration lawyer (anna baker in Rajiv S Khanna's office):
Question # 1:
From me:
I am currently on a work visa (H1) and I know that I can maintain it even if I work part-time. I want to go back to school as a full time student. I just want to check that I can maintain a legal status as a part-time worker and a full-time student. What are my options?
From Anna:
According to Mr. Khanna it should not be a problem if you hold a part-time H-1 and enroll in fulltime studies while being on H-1. You should further discuss the university's requirements with the foreign student office at the school. You cannot hold both F-1 and H-1 status.
Question # 2:
From me:
I wanted to know whether going to school full time and working part time on an H1 would jeopardize my green card application. It is currently pending at the Philly Backlog Center.
From Anna:
According to Mr. Khanna it should not have an effect.
:D ....an admissions officer of one of the schools:
It is possible to study while in H-1 status, however, it usually is not the primary purpose for being in the U.S. I have had two students who have done this, one was a PhD who only had one semester of coursework before beginning the dissertation phase and has since applied for and received permanent residency. The other student was on H-1B, was getting married to a U.S. citizen and applying for permanent residency as well, so neither case would really apply to you.
I sometimes advise students against remaining in H-1 status unless there is a compelling reason to do so. If you do remain in that status you are required to still be working for your employer, which can be difficult due to the demands of the degree program here at XXXXX. XXXXX is a full-time program, so you would not be permitted to do the program on a part-time basis in order to allow for your work commitments. Also, there is a 6 year limit on H-1's. Technically, study in H-1B should be incidental to your primary purpose for being in the U.S.
Again, if you and your employer determine that you will remain in H-1B status please let me know, otherwise we must process a change of status for you to F-1 or if you are planning on leaving the U.S. during the summer, we can process and initial status I-20 for you and you will be required to apply for an F-1 visa at a U.S. Embassy/Consulate, before returning to being the program at XXXXX.
:D ....From another admissions officer. [She keeps saying the same thing no matter how many times I ask her...I'm about to ask her for a Yes/No answer as politely as I can :) ]
You can attend school on an H-1b if school is incidental to your H-1b status
Hope this helps shed some light for you.
Question # 1:
From me:
I am currently on a work visa (H1) and I know that I can maintain it even if I work part-time. I want to go back to school as a full time student. I just want to check that I can maintain a legal status as a part-time worker and a full-time student. What are my options?
From Anna:
According to Mr. Khanna it should not be a problem if you hold a part-time H-1 and enroll in fulltime studies while being on H-1. You should further discuss the university's requirements with the foreign student office at the school. You cannot hold both F-1 and H-1 status.
Question # 2:
From me:
I wanted to know whether going to school full time and working part time on an H1 would jeopardize my green card application. It is currently pending at the Philly Backlog Center.
From Anna:
According to Mr. Khanna it should not have an effect.
:D ....an admissions officer of one of the schools:
It is possible to study while in H-1 status, however, it usually is not the primary purpose for being in the U.S. I have had two students who have done this, one was a PhD who only had one semester of coursework before beginning the dissertation phase and has since applied for and received permanent residency. The other student was on H-1B, was getting married to a U.S. citizen and applying for permanent residency as well, so neither case would really apply to you.
I sometimes advise students against remaining in H-1 status unless there is a compelling reason to do so. If you do remain in that status you are required to still be working for your employer, which can be difficult due to the demands of the degree program here at XXXXX. XXXXX is a full-time program, so you would not be permitted to do the program on a part-time basis in order to allow for your work commitments. Also, there is a 6 year limit on H-1's. Technically, study in H-1B should be incidental to your primary purpose for being in the U.S.
Again, if you and your employer determine that you will remain in H-1B status please let me know, otherwise we must process a change of status for you to F-1 or if you are planning on leaving the U.S. during the summer, we can process and initial status I-20 for you and you will be required to apply for an F-1 visa at a U.S. Embassy/Consulate, before returning to being the program at XXXXX.
:D ....From another admissions officer. [She keeps saying the same thing no matter how many times I ask her...I'm about to ask her for a Yes/No answer as politely as I can :) ]
You can attend school on an H-1b if school is incidental to your H-1b status
Hope this helps shed some light for you.
srsrsr
07-19 08:17 PM
Hello everyone!
I am planning to apply I-140 and I-485 simultaneously. My problem is, Can I change my job after 180 days of applying my I-485 and without using my EAD? I am not married yet and I have a valid H1B. Please help!
Thanks,
Raj
I am planning to apply I-140 and I-485 simultaneously. My problem is, Can I change my job after 180 days of applying my I-485 and without using my EAD? I am not married yet and I have a valid H1B. Please help!
Thanks,
Raj
more...
GCNirvana007
10-05 07:57 PM
Why do you care for Reds... and what is the guy who gave you a red losing..! Understand that first
Another moron sent this above
I dont care, its funny to think losers got so much time to do this
Another moron sent this above
I dont care, its funny to think losers got so much time to do this
2010 Nissan Titan 3 Inch Lift.
neerajvir
07-17 06:18 PM
Just put a $100 contribution and pledge to put more in every quarter!
more...
gotgc?
09-16 06:13 PM
Hi,
Here is my case specifics:
--------------------------
1. Filed PERM EB3 LC - PD:01/2006 - Approved.
2. Filed EB3 I-140 using LC Sub from my company(company's policy..) - 06/2006 - was pending
3. Filed I-485 using pending LC Sub I-140 - 07/2007
4. Second I-140 Filed - 01/2008 based on my original PERM LC.
5. Second I-140 - Approved - 02/2008
6. Attorney sent AILA Request last month on my pending I-140. Got AILA Response as below
"Talked with the I-140 senior officer this afternoon about this case. We both reviewed the I-140 and the issue with the substitution of the labor cert. It appears that the individual that had the labor cert originally, adjusted off of it. Therefore, we can not substitute it again for the individual listed below. I believe that he has one I-140 already approved and will have to stay with that priority date. Have a good weekend."
7. Based on this, my attorney told me that my first I-140 will be denied soon; but she said that my AOS will continue to be active based on my approved I-140.
8. As my attorney said, Today, I got an CRIS email saying that my LC Sub I-140 is denied.
I have couple of questions now:
1. I am worried about my I-485 since my wofe is working on EAD. My understanding is that if your I-140 is denied, then your I-485 is denied too. But, my lawyer says that since I have an approved I140, they will use that and she is quoting the AILA Response email also. Is it true? or she is just convincing me with her lies.
2. I can continue to check the status of my I-485. But, how can I verify my AOS is now tied with my approved I-140? Interestingly, my AP Renewal is approved yesterday and notice mailed (a day before my I-140 denial)
Please let me know guys. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Here is my case specifics:
--------------------------
1. Filed PERM EB3 LC - PD:01/2006 - Approved.
2. Filed EB3 I-140 using LC Sub from my company(company's policy..) - 06/2006 - was pending
3. Filed I-485 using pending LC Sub I-140 - 07/2007
4. Second I-140 Filed - 01/2008 based on my original PERM LC.
5. Second I-140 - Approved - 02/2008
6. Attorney sent AILA Request last month on my pending I-140. Got AILA Response as below
"Talked with the I-140 senior officer this afternoon about this case. We both reviewed the I-140 and the issue with the substitution of the labor cert. It appears that the individual that had the labor cert originally, adjusted off of it. Therefore, we can not substitute it again for the individual listed below. I believe that he has one I-140 already approved and will have to stay with that priority date. Have a good weekend."
7. Based on this, my attorney told me that my first I-140 will be denied soon; but she said that my AOS will continue to be active based on my approved I-140.
8. As my attorney said, Today, I got an CRIS email saying that my LC Sub I-140 is denied.
I have couple of questions now:
1. I am worried about my I-485 since my wofe is working on EAD. My understanding is that if your I-140 is denied, then your I-485 is denied too. But, my lawyer says that since I have an approved I140, they will use that and she is quoting the AILA Response email also. Is it true? or she is just convincing me with her lies.
2. I can continue to check the status of my I-485. But, how can I verify my AOS is now tied with my approved I-140? Interestingly, my AP Renewal is approved yesterday and notice mailed (a day before my I-140 denial)
Please let me know guys. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
hair 2008 Nissan Titan Le Riverside, Ca
dealsnet
04-13 09:14 PM
Citizenship of child do not consider for cross chargiability. Only the birth place of spouse will taken into consideration, if you file with details shown in the petition.
Child can be charged to either parent's country's quota, reverse is not allowed.
http://www.hooyou.com/news/news050807cross.html
Hi,
I am Canadian citizen lived in Canada for 9 years. In 2005, I moved to USA on TN visa. Here is my case details.....
Priority Date : Jun-06
Category : EB2
I140 Approved : 08/15/2006
Chargeability : India
Processing Stage : I-485, EAD, AP
I485 Mailed Date : 07/02/2007
My daughter is born in Canada in year 2000.
My quastion is can I use my daughter's birth country for cross chargeability. I know this is not very common, most of the time spouse's country of birth can be used for cross chargeability. But while I was googling I found the defination on the below website....
http://www.visapro.com/Immigration-Dictionary/C1.asp
Cross Chargeability : When a Green Card applicant is subject to a quota waiting list, but is the child or the spouse of persons born in a country with more favorable quota, the applicant may cross charge to the most favorable quota.
I would really appreciate your help.
Thanks
Child can be charged to either parent's country's quota, reverse is not allowed.
http://www.hooyou.com/news/news050807cross.html
Hi,
I am Canadian citizen lived in Canada for 9 years. In 2005, I moved to USA on TN visa. Here is my case details.....
Priority Date : Jun-06
Category : EB2
I140 Approved : 08/15/2006
Chargeability : India
Processing Stage : I-485, EAD, AP
I485 Mailed Date : 07/02/2007
My daughter is born in Canada in year 2000.
My quastion is can I use my daughter's birth country for cross chargeability. I know this is not very common, most of the time spouse's country of birth can be used for cross chargeability. But while I was googling I found the defination on the below website....
http://www.visapro.com/Immigration-Dictionary/C1.asp
Cross Chargeability : When a Green Card applicant is subject to a quota waiting list, but is the child or the spouse of persons born in a country with more favorable quota, the applicant may cross charge to the most favorable quota.
I would really appreciate your help.
Thanks
more...
gimme Green!!
07-04 10:26 PM
Just in case if they ask why you did not do MS and jumped to Job be prepare to give convincing answer.
Good Luck.
Also, keep your MBA transcripts along - that wud go to prove you are required here in the States and could be a back pocket thing against a common assumption that your intention of getting an F1 was not exactly to a masters degree but to come here and change to H1. You doing an MBA now goes to prove that you had indeed intended to do a masters, but now in a different field though !! :)
Good luck!!
Good Luck.
Also, keep your MBA transcripts along - that wud go to prove you are required here in the States and could be a back pocket thing against a common assumption that your intention of getting an F1 was not exactly to a masters degree but to come here and change to H1. You doing an MBA now goes to prove that you had indeed intended to do a masters, but now in a different field though !! :)
Good luck!!
hot Lifted Nissan Titan King Cab. Nissan Titan King Cab Lifted.
ivjobs
11-10 04:08 PM
Bumping just to facilitate people know about this group and if interested can join...
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ivstartup/
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ivstartup/
more...
house Lifted 2500HD BLACK VSgt; TITAN
vinzak
06-17 12:56 PM
It is not illegal
If you create an app for the iPhone, you should be able to put it on the apple store and derive income from it, as long as you have not worked for someone (or yourself) deriving compensation financially, without authorization.
So if i created an app and sold it, wouldn't i be working for myself and deriving financial compensation?
If you create an app for the iPhone, you should be able to put it on the apple store and derive income from it, as long as you have not worked for someone (or yourself) deriving compensation financially, without authorization.
So if i created an app and sold it, wouldn't i be working for myself and deriving financial compensation?
tattoo RVM NX1 20quot; BLACK RIMS WHEELS
kumar1305
01-22 07:27 PM
I hate the word Donate but somehow I donated blood which will be sent to Haiti. I did some in monies. Life is life no matter who it is.
more...
pictures Lifted 2500HD BLACK VSgt; TITAN
umangini
04-15 09:01 AM
Thank you for very good advice.
dresses Black Nissan Titan 2010
sky7
07-28 10:02 AM
I was reading some latest info about I140 & I140 Premium Processing at
http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html
it stated
In order to be eligible for the three-year extension, the H1B worker must be the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition and the case must be subject to retrogression (nonavailability of visa numbers).
So say I got approved I140, but since i am as of now..not subject to retrogression (I am not from India/China, my EB2 is current - PD 9/2002), then I won't be eligible for 3-yr H1B extension???? :eek:
Anyone knows?
Thanks..
http://www.murthy.com/bulletin.html
it stated
In order to be eligible for the three-year extension, the H1B worker must be the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition and the case must be subject to retrogression (nonavailability of visa numbers).
So say I got approved I140, but since i am as of now..not subject to retrogression (I am not from India/China, my EB2 is current - PD 9/2002), then I won't be eligible for 3-yr H1B extension???? :eek:
Anyone knows?
Thanks..
more...
makeup hot 2008 Nissan Titan Lifted.
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 2006 Nissan Titan LIFTED CREW
rogerdepena
08-01 10:47 PM
These are applications entered into the system on August 1st, not the ones received on August 1st.
i disagree, they usually put the date of receipt in there and not the encoded date.
i disagree, they usually put the date of receipt in there and not the encoded date.
hairstyles 2008 Nissan Titan Lifted
cfan666666
06-22 03:10 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrele...ling062107.pdf
Does this mean USCIS take it back?
Does this mean USCIS take it back?
Kodi
07-03 11:08 AM
Texas service center. I think they move much faster than Nebraska.
Oh... ok. Where can I see which service station the aplication should go to? I'm in NY
Oh... ok. Where can I see which service station the aplication should go to? I'm in NY
whitetiger0811
01-12 10:34 AM
AB1275, an update on your case? How did the MTR go??? Please provide more details and update.
No comments:
Post a Comment