gcformeornot
12-31 02:09 PM
the sadest and unluckiest members of this forum..?
wallpaper Renault Sandero Stepway
LC2002
01-02 12:16 PM
Guys,
I am seeing in CRIS, Soft LUD's on old H1B extentions dated 12/30/07 (2006,2007) while none recent one on 140/485!
Any ideas to help me understand. My 140/485 were filed in July 2007 concurrently. FP/EAD/AP were done.
I am seeing in CRIS, Soft LUD's on old H1B extentions dated 12/30/07 (2006,2007) while none recent one on 140/485!
Any ideas to help me understand. My 140/485 were filed in July 2007 concurrently. FP/EAD/AP were done.
abracadabra102
12-19 11:29 AM
My Friend, My Friend' Friend and Friend.. and the story goes on. I am sure you Friend has access to net and can express himself... ask him to post here and I am sure he will get ton's of first hand advise..
I second this post. Your "friend" should learn to fend for him/herself and post directly here.
I second this post. Your "friend" should learn to fend for him/herself and post directly here.
2011 Renault Sandero Stepway
mnq1979
05-21 03:10 PM
You have to get it from your prospective permanant employer. If you have intention of working for your past employer after you get GC, that would be it,
If you've made decision to work for your current employer on Permanant basis then that would be it..
It's not good or bad.. just keep it simple
hmmm well then lets say if i send the letter from my employer who sponsored me for my green card? how long do i have to work for him liek when can i change my employer after gettign GC?
If you've made decision to work for your current employer on Permanant basis then that would be it..
It's not good or bad.. just keep it simple
hmmm well then lets say if i send the letter from my employer who sponsored me for my green card? how long do i have to work for him liek when can i change my employer after gettign GC?
more...
bc_rp
09-14 11:18 AM
Zofa :
Per your profile your area of charegability is Egypt. EB2 dates for Egypt are current , there is nothing that prevents you from filing your 485 today .
The Visa bulletin can be found here Visa Bulletin for October 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5145.html).
Per your profile your area of charegability is Egypt. EB2 dates for Egypt are current , there is nothing that prevents you from filing your 485 today .
The Visa bulletin can be found here Visa Bulletin for October 2010 (http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5145.html).
rameshms
06-15 03:10 PM
I have used the 11 I94# on the forms. Also on some forms it mentions that you can us I94#. I too have an A number on my 140 but did not use that.
more...
akhilmahajan
04-23 07:55 AM
I am sure this question must have been answered before, but as i could not find anything with reference to it, so i thought of posting it here.
I just received a copy of the labor from my company. Is there a way to find out, whether the labor was cleared for EB-2 or not.
I am novice in this area.
If there are any other ways to find out, can anyone shed some light on it.
Thanks.
I just received a copy of the labor from my company. Is there a way to find out, whether the labor was cleared for EB-2 or not.
I am novice in this area.
If there are any other ways to find out, can anyone shed some light on it.
Thanks.
2010 The Renault Sandero
gcformeornot
12-31 01:46 PM
logged in this time. Can you do few more clicks and vote...... please....
more...
CantLeaveAmerica
12-08 05:37 PM
not a redundant mail..just their process.
I got the CPO email on Oct 22, a welcome notice in my email on oct 24, actual welcome notices in my snail mail on oct 27 and the actual cards on Oct 30...so it took me 8 to 9 days to get the physical cards.
I'd say wait till you get the cards in your hand before you travel if you can..it's a different feeling :)
I got the CPO email on Oct 22, a welcome notice in my email on oct 24, actual welcome notices in my snail mail on oct 27 and the actual cards on Oct 30...so it took me 8 to 9 days to get the physical cards.
I'd say wait till you get the cards in your hand before you travel if you can..it's a different feeling :)
hair Renault
amulchandra
05-10 01:22 PM
Hi all,
I have been trying to get an appointment from Hyderabad consulate, AP, India for the past two days on 27th or 28th of May 2009.
When I check the availability, the website shows that 27 thru 29th of May are available for appointments. But after I create and save the application it doesn't take me to the page where I can select the appointment dates. We sent an email to VFS customer support but till now we did not receive any reply.We are two H1bs(myself and my husband) and two H4s(kids).
Did anyone get an appointment successfully ?
The entire process of H1b revalidation itself is a tormenting procedure. On the top of it VFS website is really annoying.Sorry for venting my frustration.
Can anyone please help me out and guide me through the process.
Thanks in advance
Amul
I have been trying to get an appointment from Hyderabad consulate, AP, India for the past two days on 27th or 28th of May 2009.
When I check the availability, the website shows that 27 thru 29th of May are available for appointments. But after I create and save the application it doesn't take me to the page where I can select the appointment dates. We sent an email to VFS customer support but till now we did not receive any reply.We are two H1bs(myself and my husband) and two H4s(kids).
Did anyone get an appointment successfully ?
The entire process of H1b revalidation itself is a tormenting procedure. On the top of it VFS website is really annoying.Sorry for venting my frustration.
Can anyone please help me out and guide me through the process.
Thanks in advance
Amul
more...
raysaikat
05-30 10:40 PM
Thanks a lot for the information.
I am just concerned about the fact that I do not have a job and have been unemployed for more than the 90 day OPT period. I'm not sure what my status is,given such a scenario.
Thanks!
You are allowed a maximum of 90 days of unemployment during the 12 month OPT period. After that, you are accumulating out of status days. I do not know what is the penalty for out of status days --- typically more than 180 days of out of status days are bad.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-7427.htm
2. Periods of Unemployment During OPT
DHS regulations currently define the period of an F-1 student's
status as the time the student is pursuing a full course of study at an
SEVP-certified school or engaging in authorized post-completion OPT. 8
CFR 214.2(f)(5). They do not specify how much time the student may be
unemployed, making it difficult to determine when an unemployed student
on post-completion OPT violates the requirements for remaining in F-1
status. As status during OPT is based on the premise that the F-1
student is working, there must be a limit on unemployment, just as the
F-1 student's period in school is based on the premise that he is
actually pursuing a full-time course of study, and there are limits on
how often the student can reduce his course load. An F-1 student who
drops out of school or does not pursue a full-time course of study
loses status; an F-1 student with OPT who is unemployed for a
significant period should similarly put his status in jeopardy.
Therefore, this rule specifies an aggregate maximum allowed period of
unemployment of 90 days for students on 12-month OPT. This maximum
period increases by 30 days for F-1 students who have an approved 17-
month OPT period. In addition to clarifying the student's status, this
measure allows time for job searches or a break when switching
employers.
http://www.ice.gov/sevis/updates_postcompletion_opt.htm#_Toc174419546
4.9. Unemployment time
The time spent without a qualifying job during post-completion OPT. Except as noted in the section on what counts as time unemployed, each day that the student is not employed in a qualifying job, is counted toward the limit on unemployment time. The limit is 90 days for students on post-completion OPT including those with a cap gap extension, except that students with a STEM OPT extension are given an additional 30 days of unemployment time for a maximum of 120 days.
I am just concerned about the fact that I do not have a job and have been unemployed for more than the 90 day OPT period. I'm not sure what my status is,given such a scenario.
Thanks!
You are allowed a maximum of 90 days of unemployment during the 12 month OPT period. After that, you are accumulating out of status days. I do not know what is the penalty for out of status days --- typically more than 180 days of out of status days are bad.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-7427.htm
2. Periods of Unemployment During OPT
DHS regulations currently define the period of an F-1 student's
status as the time the student is pursuing a full course of study at an
SEVP-certified school or engaging in authorized post-completion OPT. 8
CFR 214.2(f)(5). They do not specify how much time the student may be
unemployed, making it difficult to determine when an unemployed student
on post-completion OPT violates the requirements for remaining in F-1
status. As status during OPT is based on the premise that the F-1
student is working, there must be a limit on unemployment, just as the
F-1 student's period in school is based on the premise that he is
actually pursuing a full-time course of study, and there are limits on
how often the student can reduce his course load. An F-1 student who
drops out of school or does not pursue a full-time course of study
loses status; an F-1 student with OPT who is unemployed for a
significant period should similarly put his status in jeopardy.
Therefore, this rule specifies an aggregate maximum allowed period of
unemployment of 90 days for students on 12-month OPT. This maximum
period increases by 30 days for F-1 students who have an approved 17-
month OPT period. In addition to clarifying the student's status, this
measure allows time for job searches or a break when switching
employers.
http://www.ice.gov/sevis/updates_postcompletion_opt.htm#_Toc174419546
4.9. Unemployment time
The time spent without a qualifying job during post-completion OPT. Except as noted in the section on what counts as time unemployed, each day that the student is not employed in a qualifying job, is counted toward the limit on unemployment time. The limit is 90 days for students on post-completion OPT including those with a cap gap extension, except that students with a STEM OPT extension are given an additional 30 days of unemployment time for a maximum of 120 days.
hot Устройство Renault Sandero:
saatiish
05-14 12:02 AM
something new, I did not know that.
BTW, I got labor approved on 3/1/2010, 140 on 3/25 and 485 approved on 5/5.
A slightly off topic - but how did you know that your 485 was approved ?
Can you tell us in detail how you got this information about your case ? I want to know if mine is approved or not.
BTW, I got labor approved on 3/1/2010, 140 on 3/25 and 485 approved on 5/5.
A slightly off topic - but how did you know that your 485 was approved ?
Can you tell us in detail how you got this information about your case ? I want to know if mine is approved or not.
more...
house O Renault Sandero 1.6 Flex
vasired
08-15 03:21 PM
Notice were from Nebraska.Recieved on 8/13 for me and 8/14 for my wife,even though both were posted on same date..good they gave up appointment at same date & same time
tattoo RENAULT SANDERO 2008 FULL -
ss1026
02-07 12:44 AM
The immigrant visa dates for EB-2 ROW (France is part of ROW - Rest Of the World) are current. That means if you convince your company to apply for a EB-2 GC, it could be approved quickly, probably within a year or two. Just for comparision, EB-2 dates for India are in Early 2004 (that is a five year wait). It makes sense to go with EB-2 employment GC. I am an India and the wait for us is the longest across the board. In the current economic scenario, it might be prudent to wait a bit before starting your employment GC. It is best to follow your attorney/firms advice on the timing.
I am not sure if you have the patience or the desire to wait for your future daughter to grow to 21 and apply for a family GC. I am not sure what the wait times are for family based GC for ROW but they are not as attractive as employment based Green card. There is no comparision in the wait times though so I imagine the other person was probably kidding. And for clarification, the longest wait for employment based GC for EB-3 India which is currently at Oct 2001 (about 7.5 years).....and that is my category :-( . It certainly aint a decade yet though it seems headed that way.
I am not sure if you have the patience or the desire to wait for your future daughter to grow to 21 and apply for a family GC. I am not sure what the wait times are for family based GC for ROW but they are not as attractive as employment based Green card. There is no comparision in the wait times though so I imagine the other person was probably kidding. And for clarification, the longest wait for employment based GC for EB-3 India which is currently at Oct 2001 (about 7.5 years).....and that is my category :-( . It certainly aint a decade yet though it seems headed that way.
more...
pictures Renault Sandero для других
snathan
06-10 09:18 AM
I am very thankful for such a generous response in such a short span of time.
I have everything back with me except I-94 and VISA ( which can be had in india).
I owe this forum a lot.....:) and i will have to repay it ...
I am happy to know that your 'thefted' issue is solved . Is there any way you can help IV. There is a fund drive going on to solve some immigrant issue. If possible please contribute.
I have everything back with me except I-94 and VISA ( which can be had in india).
I owe this forum a lot.....:) and i will have to repay it ...
I am happy to know that your 'thefted' issue is solved . Is there any way you can help IV. There is a fund drive going on to solve some immigrant issue. If possible please contribute.
dresses Re: New Renault Sandero
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...
makeup his Renault Sandero.
ilikekilo
01-08 04:03 PM
No offense to anyone but I think this is how the market is flooded sometimes with short term trained and oppurtunisticly timing decisions made by people.
Before you change careers I think you ought to see whether it really fits ur goals and aspirations..my 2 cents... CHances are you may not even like that job and want ot get trained in something else...I dont make a boat load of money but I like my job so far...however if money is the sole (please dont confuse this with means of living) reason to get into any job there are so many jobs and fields one can explore and change often...Its all your personal choice...
Before you change careers I think you ought to see whether it really fits ur goals and aspirations..my 2 cents... CHances are you may not even like that job and want ot get trained in something else...I dont make a boat load of money but I like my job so far...however if money is the sole (please dont confuse this with means of living) reason to get into any job there are so many jobs and fields one can explore and change often...Its all your personal choice...
girlfriend Renault Sandero F1 / Renault
NKR
03-11 02:53 PM
You are not DESI... How dare you to think about working for wife...Thst's not in true DESI's blood.. Wife should work for you...
Dude, Shed your medieval cloths and come to 21st century.
Dude, Shed your medieval cloths and come to 21st century.
hairstyles Renault Sandero F1 / Renault
cin45220
12-07 11:51 AM
I do not understand why Indian news papers tout salaries offered to IIT/IIM graduates in foreign companies in overseas locations. It�s a net loss for the country�
First of all, salaries are not exceptional when compared to overseas salaries (for a similar position in a similar company) and secondly, most of these graduates are taking their skills, earned through subsidized education provided by the generous Indian government in IITs/IIMs, to a foreign country.
-CinBoy
First of all, salaries are not exceptional when compared to overseas salaries (for a similar position in a similar company) and secondly, most of these graduates are taking their skills, earned through subsidized education provided by the generous Indian government in IITs/IIMs, to a foreign country.
-CinBoy
sunny26
06-18 01:33 PM
hi
yes. that what my lawyer says.i have only two months so going in person for renewal.
Does the passport have to be valid for at least 6 months at the time of filing 485?
yes. that what my lawyer says.i have only two months so going in person for renewal.
Does the passport have to be valid for at least 6 months at the time of filing 485?
mheggade
01-08 08:36 AM
I hear SAP Functional jobs are very short term though you make good money. Some companies want you to be ready for 100% travel.
No comments:
Post a Comment