shree772000
08-21 05:41 PM
Usually lawyers refrain from setting these king of dates....I am talking abt resonablely fair ones.
I feel its ur stupid act to know what other people think...You should have asked instead of "Lawyer Says...".
Noone can say when ur perticular case will be adjudicated, and I mean Noone.
I feel its ur stupid act to know what other people think...You should have asked instead of "Lawyer Says...".
Noone can say when ur perticular case will be adjudicated, and I mean Noone.
wallpaper Randy Jackson is world famous
Tommy_S
03-08 02:35 AM
heh... the problem w/ this is... all the sites seem to be influenced by one another... and progressively got better... you all should've kept your stuff under wraps until the end
Voted for mlkedave. I like the style.
Voted for mlkedave. I like the style.
kondur_007
09-24 12:06 PM
All they said was that you do not have enough ties in India and you will work there.
It sounds very lame to me.
It looks like sec 214 (b) denial. This is purely at descretion of consulate. No one can say "consulate is wrong" in this case. To my eyes, only option is to get here here on H4 and then apply for change of status to F1 (with the help of a good lawyer since the case is somewhat convoluted now).
I am not quite certain about other options of continuing to study on H4 (which may exist), but definitely OPT option will only be available with F1.
Good Luck.
It sounds very lame to me.
It looks like sec 214 (b) denial. This is purely at descretion of consulate. No one can say "consulate is wrong" in this case. To my eyes, only option is to get here here on H4 and then apply for change of status to F1 (with the help of a good lawyer since the case is somewhat convoluted now).
I am not quite certain about other options of continuing to study on H4 (which may exist), but definitely OPT option will only be available with F1.
Good Luck.
2011 randy jackson journey photos.
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.
more...
glus
04-17 07:57 AM
Hi
I am planning to take up a job on AC21. My title in labor is Management Analyst. Related to computer science field. The related occupation field has system analysis as the related occupation.
I have approved I140. It is more than 180 days. I am getting new offer as system analyst. My new manager is ready to give me AC21 letter in the format confirming to the labor cirt as my responsibilities match.
my labor was transfered from another employee. Do you think USCIS will treat AC21 for labor switch cases differently then compared to 485 cases using own labor.
I will appreciate advise from any one who has gone through this similar situation.
Check the directory of occupational titles and ensure the new and old jobs have the same / very close occupational code. You can find it on the DOL website. Duties is one thing, but the code is also important.
I am planning to take up a job on AC21. My title in labor is Management Analyst. Related to computer science field. The related occupation field has system analysis as the related occupation.
I have approved I140. It is more than 180 days. I am getting new offer as system analyst. My new manager is ready to give me AC21 letter in the format confirming to the labor cirt as my responsibilities match.
my labor was transfered from another employee. Do you think USCIS will treat AC21 for labor switch cases differently then compared to 485 cases using own labor.
I will appreciate advise from any one who has gone through this similar situation.
Check the directory of occupational titles and ensure the new and old jobs have the same / very close occupational code. You can find it on the DOL website. Duties is one thing, but the code is also important.
gonecrazyonh4
01-29 12:06 PM
Agreement Reached to Re-evaluate Rule Requiring Federal Contractors to Use E-Verify
Yesterday, the U.S. government agreed to delay until May 21, 2009, implementation of a new rule requiring federal contractors to use the federal government�s E-Verify employment eligibility system.
SHRM and other associations requested this extension after the president�s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, issued a memorandum to all agencies stating that agencies should consider extending the effective dates of all regulations that were published in the Federal Register but that have not yet taken effect.
While SHRM, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Associated Builders and Contractors, HR Policy Association, and the American Council on International Personnel still have a lawsuit pending against the government challenging the legality of the federal contractor mandate, this agreement suspends court proceedings in order to allow the Obama Administration an opportunity to review the rule.
Yesterday, the U.S. government agreed to delay until May 21, 2009, implementation of a new rule requiring federal contractors to use the federal government�s E-Verify employment eligibility system.
SHRM and other associations requested this extension after the president�s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, issued a memorandum to all agencies stating that agencies should consider extending the effective dates of all regulations that were published in the Federal Register but that have not yet taken effect.
While SHRM, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Associated Builders and Contractors, HR Policy Association, and the American Council on International Personnel still have a lawsuit pending against the government challenging the legality of the federal contractor mandate, this agreement suspends court proceedings in order to allow the Obama Administration an opportunity to review the rule.
more...
looivy
03-19 03:33 PM
Can a legal expert provide advice as to whether I can use EAD/AP to get in?
Bump
Bump
2010 Left madeosrandy-jackson-
Raj12
02-05 05:25 PM
I am in Alabama (near Huntsville)
more...
desi485
12-21 06:32 PM
looks like ur first post. Its not advisable to move before 180 days. If at all you have to do it, take your current employer in confidence.
hair Idol judge Randy Jackson
eb3_nepa
12-09 05:08 PM
I agree on this "full disclosure". If I have to leave a comment or a red/green dot, the person writing the comment HAS to be forced to reveal their ID.
more...
Iamthejuggler
01-22 04:36 AM
Any chance of getting a descriptive sentence next to the entries? I don't think people will realise that they can use the mouse to rotate the camera in mine without one unless they luck into it.
hot randy jackson journey. randy
gconmymind
10-31 01:46 PM
Some of my friends have already received EADs without the FP.
I am still waiting for receipts - filed 13th August
I am still waiting for receipts - filed 13th August
more...
house house makeup Randy Jackson
Sakthisagar
08-06 02:14 PM
Is it a big blow for desi consulting firms??
US raises H-1B, L1 visa fee by $2000
Washington: The US Senate today approved a substantial increase in application fees for H-1B and L1 visas, most sought after by Indian IT professionals to fund a $ 600 million emergency package to improve security along the porous Mexican border.
The proposed massive increase in H-1B and L1 visa application fee would primarily affect the top Indian IT companies who rely majorly on these categories of visas to continue with their work in the US. The Senate measure increases the visa fee to $ 2,000 per application on those companies that have less than 50 percent of their employees as American citizens.
"I prefer our source, which is from these companies which are not, as I say they are companies whose whole purpose is to bring people in on H-1B and the vast majority of them from other countries who go back to the other countries. That is a better funding source," Senator Charles Schumer from New York said in his remarks on the Senate floor.
Schumer along with his other democratic colleagues including Senator Claire McCaskill has introduced the legislation in this regard, which was passed by unanimous consent. During the debate, however, Senator John McCain wanted to fund the security along the Mexican border with the stimulus money, which was turned down by Schumer.
"The bottom line is this. I like the H-1B programme, and I think it does a lot of good for a lot of American companies. In fact, in the immigration proposal I made, along with Senator Reid and Senator Menendez, as well as the outline with Senator Graham, we expand H-1B in a variety of ways," Schumer argued.
"There is a part of H-1B that is abused, and it is by companies that are not American companies or even companies that are making something. Rather, they are companies that take foreign folks, bring them here, and then they stay here for a few years, learn their expertise, and go back. We think we should increase the fees when they do that," the Senator said.
Rejecting McCain's proposal to get the funding from the stimulus money, Schumer said: "I hope, even though I cannot accept these amendments, that maybe we could come together on something that we could bring back in September because I do believe we have to secure the border."
Schumer said: "Even in the comprehensive proposal that we made, we said we have to secure the border and do other things as well. It is my belief that securing the border alone will not solve our immigration problems; that until we have comprehensive reform, particularly in making sure employers do not hire illegal immigrants which they now do, even though they do not know they are illegal immigrants because documents are so easily forged, that we have to do comprehensive. But we should do the border. To say we have to do comprehensive does not gainsay that we have to work on theborder and work on it quickly and soon."
It is not clear yet, if this increase would also apply only to those firms that are also H-1B-dependent.
All Politics, .. only senate approved this now Congress has to put on vote and pass this and The President has to Sign, then only this is a Law other wise this remains as a Proposal.
US raises H-1B, L1 visa fee by $2000
Washington: The US Senate today approved a substantial increase in application fees for H-1B and L1 visas, most sought after by Indian IT professionals to fund a $ 600 million emergency package to improve security along the porous Mexican border.
The proposed massive increase in H-1B and L1 visa application fee would primarily affect the top Indian IT companies who rely majorly on these categories of visas to continue with their work in the US. The Senate measure increases the visa fee to $ 2,000 per application on those companies that have less than 50 percent of their employees as American citizens.
"I prefer our source, which is from these companies which are not, as I say they are companies whose whole purpose is to bring people in on H-1B and the vast majority of them from other countries who go back to the other countries. That is a better funding source," Senator Charles Schumer from New York said in his remarks on the Senate floor.
Schumer along with his other democratic colleagues including Senator Claire McCaskill has introduced the legislation in this regard, which was passed by unanimous consent. During the debate, however, Senator John McCain wanted to fund the security along the Mexican border with the stimulus money, which was turned down by Schumer.
"The bottom line is this. I like the H-1B programme, and I think it does a lot of good for a lot of American companies. In fact, in the immigration proposal I made, along with Senator Reid and Senator Menendez, as well as the outline with Senator Graham, we expand H-1B in a variety of ways," Schumer argued.
"There is a part of H-1B that is abused, and it is by companies that are not American companies or even companies that are making something. Rather, they are companies that take foreign folks, bring them here, and then they stay here for a few years, learn their expertise, and go back. We think we should increase the fees when they do that," the Senator said.
Rejecting McCain's proposal to get the funding from the stimulus money, Schumer said: "I hope, even though I cannot accept these amendments, that maybe we could come together on something that we could bring back in September because I do believe we have to secure the border."
Schumer said: "Even in the comprehensive proposal that we made, we said we have to secure the border and do other things as well. It is my belief that securing the border alone will not solve our immigration problems; that until we have comprehensive reform, particularly in making sure employers do not hire illegal immigrants which they now do, even though they do not know they are illegal immigrants because documents are so easily forged, that we have to do comprehensive. But we should do the border. To say we have to do comprehensive does not gainsay that we have to work on theborder and work on it quickly and soon."
It is not clear yet, if this increase would also apply only to those firms that are also H-1B-dependent.
All Politics, .. only senate approved this now Congress has to put on vote and pass this and The President has to Sign, then only this is a Law other wise this remains as a Proposal.
tattoo dresses Randy Jackson Journey:
optimystic
04-22 03:49 PM
I-485 could be from family based, EB1 and ROW categories. I dont all these became Unavailable on July 2nd. Also you are right, USCIS didnt reject applications even though they came in between July 2nd and 17th.
That particular date of July 11 at NSC is for EB I-485 !
That particular date of July 11 at NSC is for EB I-485 !
more...
pictures Randy Jackson Journey: The
xbohdpukc
03-15 05:17 PM
As per my attorney, the provision of using I-140 date is for an individual. Employer's revocation has no impact.
As per Adjudicator's Field Manual:
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions.
The key word there is APPROVED. One might argue that since a petition has been revoked, it's no longer approved, therefore the clause cannot be used for a PD recapturing. There might be another argument stating that if an alien has ever had an approved I-140 petition and never used the attached priority date then he/she is still eligible to recapture that PD. This is a huge wiggling space for the adjudicator and I don't think there is a clear explanation from the USCIS.
You can always hope for the best and get ready for the worst.
As per Adjudicator's Field Manual:
If an alien is the beneficiary of two (or more) approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions, the priority of the earlier petition may be applied to all subsequently-filed employment-based petitions.
The key word there is APPROVED. One might argue that since a petition has been revoked, it's no longer approved, therefore the clause cannot be used for a PD recapturing. There might be another argument stating that if an alien has ever had an approved I-140 petition and never used the attached priority date then he/she is still eligible to recapture that PD. This is a huge wiggling space for the adjudicator and I don't think there is a clear explanation from the USCIS.
You can always hope for the best and get ready for the worst.
dresses 2010 randy jackson journey
kart2007
10-24 06:36 PM
finally status for EAD and AP changed to " documents mailed".
But yesterday i received a letter from USCIS related to the fax I did before.
and as per that letter, my request to expedite my EAD and AP is not valid(?????????????) so they sent my fax back (print out). I really dont understand this!!!!!!!!!!
waiting for EAD & AP hopefully I will get it tomorrow.
Good luck
But was your AP/EAD in Pending status or Approved status when you emailed the Ombdusman?
But yesterday i received a letter from USCIS related to the fax I did before.
and as per that letter, my request to expedite my EAD and AP is not valid(?????????????) so they sent my fax back (print out). I really dont understand this!!!!!!!!!!
waiting for EAD & AP hopefully I will get it tomorrow.
Good luck
But was your AP/EAD in Pending status or Approved status when you emailed the Ombdusman?
more...
makeup randy jackson journey video. Post subject: Jackson Presents
njboy
09-11 01:35 PM
well, he is talking only about the backlog processing centers...so..there are no i-140s backlogged in the BPC because.......there are hundreds of thousands of labor certifications that need to be cleared first..only after which they can apply for i-140! Like I said, he is focusing on the positive, which is a good thing..Someone else (erroneously) said that the department of labor and the backlog processing centers are 2 different entitities..however, I'd like to point out that, the job of clearing the labor certs has been transferred over from the state workforce agencies to the backlog processing centers..so, ignoring that, and saying there is no i-140 backlog is just focusing on the good news..
girlfriend randy jackson journey video.
kalyan
07-07 05:10 AM
U r lucky that you have the EAD.
My H1B transfer was denied with I-140 approved . worked for more than 6 years in US. I moved back to India and started working here
Washington and DOS wants Legal immigrants out ( they cannot and could'nt do any thing to illegals-- ) and wants companies to hire people graduating from the university of Mc Donalds, Burger King, KFC and those zeroes needs to be trained and trained
US business'es has to serious think about this otherwise, their counter parts elsewhere in the world will be more competitive
My H1B transfer was denied with I-140 approved . worked for more than 6 years in US. I moved back to India and started working here
Washington and DOS wants Legal immigrants out ( they cannot and could'nt do any thing to illegals-- ) and wants companies to hire people graduating from the university of Mc Donalds, Burger King, KFC and those zeroes needs to be trained and trained
US business'es has to serious think about this otherwise, their counter parts elsewhere in the world will be more competitive
hairstyles dresses randy jackson journey
vadicherla
05-08 12:15 PM
Contribution $25 for this month.
Subscription Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #11R03083P3635964R)
In reference to: S-1RN47603HG965415U
Subscription Payment Sent (Unique Transaction ID #11R03083P3635964R)
In reference to: S-1RN47603HG965415U
coopheal
03-15 03:16 AM
Why should I contribute?
I'm not going to do.
For this I'll get red dots, and will be banned.
I do not care.
If you don�t want to contribute, then don�t. There is no need to brag about it.
You are not doing any noble cause by not contributing.
IV volunteers have every right to ask for contribution on various forums.
Least you can do is not confront them on contribution.
I'm not going to do.
For this I'll get red dots, and will be banned.
I do not care.
If you don�t want to contribute, then don�t. There is no need to brag about it.
You are not doing any noble cause by not contributing.
IV volunteers have every right to ask for contribution on various forums.
Least you can do is not confront them on contribution.
dcrtrv27
11-14 07:32 AM
Why dont you write to your COngressman or Senator?
If possible go and meet them They will help you. or even better have your employer also write to them expalining the circumstances.
Arulz,
I did follwing things so far...
1) Wrote Congressman (Informed that I should get adjucation by 60-120days)
2) Wrote Senator,(Informed that I should get adjucation by 60-90days)
3) Wrote Ombudsman.,(Informed that I should get adjucation by 60-90days)
4) Called USCIS and raised thre SR so far.
5) Talked to IO atelast once a week since last one month. (Asked to wait for weeks everytime)
6) Had infopass past week : confirm teh case assigned to IO on Oct.17th
My background check is clear VISa is available PD ius current...Everything is ready to go....Except that sleeping IO should wait up and cleare his desk.:mad:
ONLY think now I need to do is track the IO and identify and contact him and wake him up and ask to do the needful.:D
If possible go and meet them They will help you. or even better have your employer also write to them expalining the circumstances.
Arulz,
I did follwing things so far...
1) Wrote Congressman (Informed that I should get adjucation by 60-120days)
2) Wrote Senator,(Informed that I should get adjucation by 60-90days)
3) Wrote Ombudsman.,(Informed that I should get adjucation by 60-90days)
4) Called USCIS and raised thre SR so far.
5) Talked to IO atelast once a week since last one month. (Asked to wait for weeks everytime)
6) Had infopass past week : confirm teh case assigned to IO on Oct.17th
My background check is clear VISa is available PD ius current...Everything is ready to go....Except that sleeping IO should wait up and cleare his desk.:mad:
ONLY think now I need to do is track the IO and identify and contact him and wake him up and ask to do the needful.:D
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar