walking_dude
03-28 10:39 AM
With the launching of IV Tracker tool for it's registered members, IV has taken the right step in becoming the one-stop portal for all issues related to EB immigration.
IV Tracker - http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_tracker&Itemid=63
Hopefully, it will limit the current practice of opening tracker threads to track the progress in processing dates etc. I also hope the tool gets extended in the future to support other features such as PIMS verification and annual EAD renewals too.
Great job, IV team, in providing such a useful tool for the benefit of our community.
IV Tracker - http://immigrationvoice.org/index.php?option=com_tracker&Itemid=63
Hopefully, it will limit the current practice of opening tracker threads to track the progress in processing dates etc. I also hope the tool gets extended in the future to support other features such as PIMS verification and annual EAD renewals too.
Great job, IV team, in providing such a useful tool for the benefit of our community.
wallpaper 2011 Cameron Diaz was ambushed
yetanotherguyinline
11-09 01:01 PM
I have decent writing skills and can help.
reverendflash
10-21 02:29 AM
:asian: :cool: :cowboy: :ninja: :pirate:
cakes are fun... :P :P
plus they taste good... =)
Rev:elderly:
cakes are fun... :P :P
plus they taste good... =)
Rev:elderly:
2011 cameron-diaz-hair-330x463
chanduv23
08-15 07:50 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
more...
Prashanthi
08-21 01:31 PM
I filed for I-485 under EB3 category in July 2007 and have a priority date of March 2003. Since EB3 is not moving at all. I applied in EB2 category and got I-140 approved based on my old Priority date(March 2003).
My attorney sent a letter to USCIS and requesting them to approve my case based on my approved I-140 (EB2) in July 2009. Since then we haven't received any communication from them.
My case is current as of Aug 1st 2009 but no LUD's on my case.
How would I know that USCIS have changed my case from EB3 to EB2.
I apperciate your response in this regard.
If your new I-140 has the 2003 priority date on it and you have confirmed with the USCIS that your I-485 is now based on the EB-2 filing, i would wait for a couple of months, you have a good chance of approval of your I-485 if the visa number remains current for the next few months.
If you don't hear from them or if you are not sure that your new I-140 has been successfully interfiled with your pending I-485, then you could also apply for a new i-485 based on the EB-2 I-140. The USCIS might ask you which I-485 you want to keep as you are not allowed to file 2 adjustment cases. For cases that are current, i have recently noticed that they are approving I-485's in 2-3 months.
My attorney sent a letter to USCIS and requesting them to approve my case based on my approved I-140 (EB2) in July 2009. Since then we haven't received any communication from them.
My case is current as of Aug 1st 2009 but no LUD's on my case.
How would I know that USCIS have changed my case from EB3 to EB2.
I apperciate your response in this regard.
If your new I-140 has the 2003 priority date on it and you have confirmed with the USCIS that your I-485 is now based on the EB-2 filing, i would wait for a couple of months, you have a good chance of approval of your I-485 if the visa number remains current for the next few months.
If you don't hear from them or if you are not sure that your new I-140 has been successfully interfiled with your pending I-485, then you could also apply for a new i-485 based on the EB-2 I-140. The USCIS might ask you which I-485 you want to keep as you are not allowed to file 2 adjustment cases. For cases that are current, i have recently noticed that they are approving I-485's in 2-3 months.
fromnaija
02-07 01:08 AM
good question. i guess you were thinking we both were on AOS stage.
only im on adjustment of status, i havent filed for my spouse yet. i got married after reto kicked in. so the only option for her is to stay here is on H4 and to support that I had to stay on H1B, even thou i have EAD.
hope this explains. thanks.
Yes, that explains it. Okay, now that your spouse is here how do you add her to your 485? What happens to her H4 when your 485 is approved? I am asking because someone I know is in same situation.
I guess the question I am trying to ask is, is there a way to have an addendum to a 485 after submission?
only im on adjustment of status, i havent filed for my spouse yet. i got married after reto kicked in. so the only option for her is to stay here is on H4 and to support that I had to stay on H1B, even thou i have EAD.
hope this explains. thanks.
Yes, that explains it. Okay, now that your spouse is here how do you add her to your 485? What happens to her H4 when your 485 is approved? I am asking because someone I know is in same situation.
I guess the question I am trying to ask is, is there a way to have an addendum to a 485 after submission?
more...
rahul98
07-17 07:07 PM
Great job IV..I am proud to be a part of IV.
Contributed $100...
Order Details - Jul 17, 2007 16:16 GMT-07:00
Google Order #10xxxxxxxxxxx3
Contributed $100...
Order Details - Jul 17, 2007 16:16 GMT-07:00
Google Order #10xxxxxxxxxxx3
2010 hair cameron diaz 2011
CatsintheCraddle
05-04 01:14 PM
My I-485 was denied April 14. USCIS said I only sent them a partial answer to their request for evidence.
I filed for I-485 and I-130 in Nov. 2008 and in December we had to resend all mine, my husband (sponsor) and my cosponsor's tax info. which we did. My case was resumed but I never received my EAD. I contacted the USCIS regarding this and they responded with another RFE; they needed my cosponsor's tax. info again. We resend the exact same things as we did in December and in the meantime I contact my senator and the ombudsman who both look into the case and tell me the USCIS has promised to respond to me a.s.a.p.
USCIS's response: My I-485 has been denied, my cosponsor did not send in all his tax info. My cosponsor, who has an identical copy of everything he has sent now three times (everything was in the original application in Nov. too) says it is all there. The USCIS wants us to file for a motion to reopen the case which costs $585. To me this is ridiculous; I originally lost my job (I was working under OPT) becuase they kept delaying my case, and now they want more money? I know it's my word against theirs but we are considering applying for the motion to reopen but was wondering how long do they have to accept or deny this. Also, we are submitting a waiver for the fee due to my husband also being unemployed at the moment and need our savings if we have to leave the country but are wondering if we can also send a check along with the waiver in case they won't waive the fee. They denied the case on April 14, 2009 but did not mail the letter out until the april 23 - we now have less than a week to file for a motion.
Please, if anyone has any experience with filing a motion let us know about it.
I filed for I-485 and I-130 in Nov. 2008 and in December we had to resend all mine, my husband (sponsor) and my cosponsor's tax info. which we did. My case was resumed but I never received my EAD. I contacted the USCIS regarding this and they responded with another RFE; they needed my cosponsor's tax. info again. We resend the exact same things as we did in December and in the meantime I contact my senator and the ombudsman who both look into the case and tell me the USCIS has promised to respond to me a.s.a.p.
USCIS's response: My I-485 has been denied, my cosponsor did not send in all his tax info. My cosponsor, who has an identical copy of everything he has sent now three times (everything was in the original application in Nov. too) says it is all there. The USCIS wants us to file for a motion to reopen the case which costs $585. To me this is ridiculous; I originally lost my job (I was working under OPT) becuase they kept delaying my case, and now they want more money? I know it's my word against theirs but we are considering applying for the motion to reopen but was wondering how long do they have to accept or deny this. Also, we are submitting a waiver for the fee due to my husband also being unemployed at the moment and need our savings if we have to leave the country but are wondering if we can also send a check along with the waiver in case they won't waive the fee. They denied the case on April 14, 2009 but did not mail the letter out until the april 23 - we now have less than a week to file for a motion.
Please, if anyone has any experience with filing a motion let us know about it.
more...
cooltypes
06-04 12:56 PM
New Immigration Bill Amendment Could Help Keep Foreign Tech Workers In U.S.
http://www.shusterman.com/cgi-bin/ex-link.pl?www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=UWJRQUDRODHLAQSNDLPCK HSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=199800102&queryText=immigration
http://www.shusterman.com/cgi-bin/ex-link.pl?www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=UWJRQUDRODHLAQSNDLPCK HSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=199800102&queryText=immigration
hair cameron diaz hair.
NNReddy
08-26 02:30 PM
My friend's wife got a job. company didn't ask for ead card so far. she filed the employment applicaiton where they asked her if she is a citizen or green card, she filled everything correct, they made an offer and did the background check, she is supposed to start in 2 weeks.
Question, does she need to disclose about EAD now or wait until start give the information while filling I-9 Form. Does employeer right to not hire people on EAD?
Please clarify.
Question, does she need to disclose about EAD now or wait until start give the information while filling I-9 Form. Does employeer right to not hire people on EAD?
Please clarify.
more...
sugaur
12-23 12:17 AM
I dont recommend going into Juarez. Even Mexicans are fleeing and there are reports of shooting and murder at the border frequently.
hot cameron diaz haircut 2011.
meridiani.planum
12-19 12:45 AM
There's a quite a misconception that if h1 is canceled, it cannot be extended. It's nothing like that. Your friend can file for visa transfer (pay extra for premium processing) and get it in two weeks.
The only time you have to file a new H1 is when you leave US and remain outside for a year. Otherwise an transfer is all you need. This misconception is very widespread. Rajiv Khanna was at pains to try to exterminate this in one of his tele-conferences.
Anyhow, at this point, your friend should be talking to an attorney instead of having you make a post at this forum.
seconding this post. the H1 is still valid. It can be extended. The only two potential troubles are:
1. its been quite some time since your friend was last in status (Sept) so USCIS will liekly issue an RFE (do the transfer in premium processing) and will approve the H1 but not the updated status (you will get an I797 without an I94 at the bottom). If that happens your friend will need to leave the US and return (any border, need not go to home country) to activate teh H1.
2. if your friend stays out of status for >6 months it can impact his eligibility for greencard down the line.
The only time you have to file a new H1 is when you leave US and remain outside for a year. Otherwise an transfer is all you need. This misconception is very widespread. Rajiv Khanna was at pains to try to exterminate this in one of his tele-conferences.
Anyhow, at this point, your friend should be talking to an attorney instead of having you make a post at this forum.
seconding this post. the H1 is still valid. It can be extended. The only two potential troubles are:
1. its been quite some time since your friend was last in status (Sept) so USCIS will liekly issue an RFE (do the transfer in premium processing) and will approve the H1 but not the updated status (you will get an I797 without an I94 at the bottom). If that happens your friend will need to leave the US and return (any border, need not go to home country) to activate teh H1.
2. if your friend stays out of status for >6 months it can impact his eligibility for greencard down the line.
more...
house wallpaper CAMERON DIAZ LATEST
sreeanne
02-07 07:51 PM
i never filed EAD before but i filed 131 by myself 2 weeks back. its pretty straight forward and i even got receipt notice. make sure you attach all the required proofs along with new fees. thats it.
tattoo 2011 cameron diaz hair in what
gauravsh
04-28 08:57 AM
Travelled back from India today by continental flight from mumbai till newark non stop. My H1b is expiring on 19th june. Had a ISSUELESS entry. The guy asked your petition is valid only till 19th June. I replied I am going to file an extension. he said you will be needing to reenter the country after it. I said "yes, I know". He said he is going to give in I-94 valid till 29th june just in case if I have any issues. That is 10 more days after my petition is expring.
Guy was very nice and supporting. We shared some jokes . he notices that by passport has writing that If I take citizenship of any other country than I have to surrender the passport. he asked "india dont allow dual citizenship". I said "No". he replied "It sucks" and we laughed together.
My advice dont let current recession effect your trip. If you need any more information PM me. I will be happy to assist.
Also, just I wanted to share the information becuase many people seemed worried about this.
Good luck :) :) :) :)
Guy was very nice and supporting. We shared some jokes . he notices that by passport has writing that If I take citizenship of any other country than I have to surrender the passport. he asked "india dont allow dual citizenship". I said "No". he replied "It sucks" and we laughed together.
My advice dont let current recession effect your trip. If you need any more information PM me. I will be happy to assist.
Also, just I wanted to share the information becuase many people seemed worried about this.
Good luck :) :) :) :)
more...
pictures 2011 hair cameron diaz 2011.
kirupa
01-13 02:28 PM
Not sure if i have time to do an entry, but i'll try. One question though. Is external actionscript classes ok, or does it all have to be done on the timeline? Obviously i am referring to external actionscript classes that we wrote ourselves, not libraries/engines or other peoples' work.
Sure - do whatever you want :)
To address this, I modified the guidelines to show that tweens are allowed. You can tweeen either on the timeline or via code if you want.
Sure - do whatever you want :)
To address this, I modified the guidelines to show that tweens are allowed. You can tweeen either on the timeline or via code if you want.
dresses hair Cameron Diaz for
seahawks
09-12 11:41 PM
28 members and counting! yippee...
more...
makeup Cameron Diaz Updo Hairstyle
angelfire76
04-23 01:20 PM
I know it is a loss in priority date. But my point is: "does fighting with the lawyer, give him his time back?" In fact by that he is loosing his valuable time and energy further.
If there is "ANY" method to get his "LC" approved with the same priority date, I totally agree he should do that.
That is what I mean by "focus on your goal". If your goal is to fight with lawyer for a cause, just do it. You will at least feel happy that you did the right thing, whatever you felt right.
Also "you pay the lawyer to represent you and to do things for you". The "payment" is not for a 100% error-free service. It is always back on your shoulder to make sure the lawyer is doing the right thing. Many of you may not agree, but that is my view. It is just a service. Not an "error-free-guaranteed" service.
You must be a lawyer, the ambulance chasing kind. Try the same line of argument with your boss when the system (assuming you are a IT guy) that you built and deployed into production fails and you want more money to fix your errors.
The reason we engage a lawyer and not do the stuff ourselves is because we don't know enough of the (unnecessarily complex) US immigration law. The least thing the lawyer can do is review the form before submitting it to DOL.
No wonder with guys like you, like teli said, we are stuck in an absurdly long immigration queue.
To the original poster, file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) soon with the help of another lawyer if possible with an explanation of the error. If the mistake is genuine, DOL will reopen your case.
If there is "ANY" method to get his "LC" approved with the same priority date, I totally agree he should do that.
That is what I mean by "focus on your goal". If your goal is to fight with lawyer for a cause, just do it. You will at least feel happy that you did the right thing, whatever you felt right.
Also "you pay the lawyer to represent you and to do things for you". The "payment" is not for a 100% error-free service. It is always back on your shoulder to make sure the lawyer is doing the right thing. Many of you may not agree, but that is my view. It is just a service. Not an "error-free-guaranteed" service.
You must be a lawyer, the ambulance chasing kind. Try the same line of argument with your boss when the system (assuming you are a IT guy) that you built and deployed into production fails and you want more money to fix your errors.
The reason we engage a lawyer and not do the stuff ourselves is because we don't know enough of the (unnecessarily complex) US immigration law. The least thing the lawyer can do is review the form before submitting it to DOL.
No wonder with guys like you, like teli said, we are stuck in an absurdly long immigration queue.
To the original poster, file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) soon with the help of another lawyer if possible with an explanation of the error. If the mistake is genuine, DOL will reopen your case.
girlfriend jessica biel hair color 2011.
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
hairstyles Top 5 Celebrity hair styles
immi_enthu
08-28 10:14 AM
what do u mean by approved labor not signed??
Labour approval is approved by DOL .
It needs to be attached to 140 application.
140 application needs to signed by employer or by attorney in case a G 28 is signed by the employer.
485 is to signed by you or by attrnoney in case a G 28 is signed by you
That is correct. You do not get to sign the 140 as it is has to be applied by the employer. You however, have to sign your approved Labor which will be attached to the 140 application.
please see the above quote by kaiserose
Labour approval is approved by DOL .
It needs to be attached to 140 application.
140 application needs to signed by employer or by attorney in case a G 28 is signed by the employer.
485 is to signed by you or by attrnoney in case a G 28 is signed by you
That is correct. You do not get to sign the 140 as it is has to be applied by the employer. You however, have to sign your approved Labor which will be attached to the 140 application.
please see the above quote by kaiserose
gk_2000
01-26 07:09 PM
Well done team IV! BTW has IV already published this email to newspapers? IIRC a free site like PRNEWSWIRE will also help :-)
PR Newswire is AWESOME!
PR Newswire is AWESOME!
chanduv23
09-22 10:00 AM
Small companies will do this. If it is a big company with HR and payroll departments not being micro managed by the employer - then you won't face these problems.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий