asanghi
07-17 06:50 PM
I am overjoyed to the extent of tearing up!! I cannot thank IV and all the people who have made an effort at turning this table.
How must I thank you all? Really I mean it from the bottom of my heart, You guys have done such an incredible job!!! When there was no hope, you have made me believe in one thing for sure - Where there is will, there is a way.
Thank you!!!!! You have made many people happy and I am sure everyone is blessing this team and all the people who have worked for it so hard.
Always will remember this day. I will continue to help and be a part of this team.
Perhaps new members are not aware that core members have spent money out of their pockets in the range of $20000-$30000 for the cause of IV. So one way to really thank them would be to contribute generously.
How must I thank you all? Really I mean it from the bottom of my heart, You guys have done such an incredible job!!! When there was no hope, you have made me believe in one thing for sure - Where there is will, there is a way.
Thank you!!!!! You have made many people happy and I am sure everyone is blessing this team and all the people who have worked for it so hard.
Always will remember this day. I will continue to help and be a part of this team.
Perhaps new members are not aware that core members have spent money out of their pockets in the range of $20000-$30000 for the cause of IV. So one way to really thank them would be to contribute generously.
wallpaper poems for friends forever. for
newuser
05-10 09:34 PM
We recently had the same problem for my in-laws appointment (Hyd). The calendar shows the dates are avaiable, but when we are about to make the actual appointment, the hyperlinks are missing on the calendar. VFS did acknowledge this issue when I called their customer support no. There said to try after couple of hours ( or may be days) and it did work.
Save the applications and try to schedule the date at a latter time. Call the customer support no on VFS website. Sometimes they would to try to schedule appointment. In my case, it didn't work even for the Customer Service Rep also.
Best of luck.
Save the applications and try to schedule the date at a latter time. Call the customer support no on VFS website. Sometimes they would to try to schedule appointment. In my case, it didn't work even for the Customer Service Rep also.
Best of luck.
gimme Green!!
08-19 12:43 PM
i dont know what ADIT is.
there was no mention of 'ADIT' or 'Card ordered' in my email.
I got the email that said:
============================
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
We mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.
=============================
there was no mention of 'ADIT' or 'Card ordered' in my email.
I got the email that said:
============================
Application Type: I485, APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS
Current Status: Approval notice sent.
We mailed you a notice that we have approved this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS. Please follow any instructions on the notice. If you move before you receive the notice, call customer service.
=============================
2011 poems for your est friend
vts31
10-15 08:34 PM
my sis watches that
more...
lostinus
07-17 06:56 PM
Great job IV team. Congratulations. Thanks a million.
Contributed $100 today. Pledge to put more in every quarter.
Contributed $100 today. Pledge to put more in every quarter.
ivorycard
10-17 09:27 PM
I had a conference call with the leading law firm.
He confirmed that, as long as the first two numbers falls under the same category/domain, the job changes is good for AC21. The sub-categorical numbers do not matter.
He confirmed that, as long as the first two numbers falls under the same category/domain, the job changes is good for AC21. The sub-categorical numbers do not matter.
more...
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.
2010 funny est friend poems. i
new_horizon
03-14 05:11 PM
$600 for individual. $1200 for joint filing (hus & wife), and $600 for each dependent (child). Don't know if parents (dependents) are included.
also there is a ceiling in AGI.
Single - <75K;
Joint - <150K
but the amount gradually decreases as your AGI reaches the ceiling : (
I just got the IRS letter with the info yesterday.
Its part of Bush's stimulus package... I don't don't think anything is required on your part besides filing taxes. The rebates should be coming in around May according to NPR, if I am not mistaken. $600 per individual filing. In a joint filing $600 each for husband and wife, $300 for each kid (ceiling?)
also there is a ceiling in AGI.
Single - <75K;
Joint - <150K
but the amount gradually decreases as your AGI reaches the ceiling : (
I just got the IRS letter with the info yesterday.
Its part of Bush's stimulus package... I don't don't think anything is required on your part besides filing taxes. The rebates should be coming in around May according to NPR, if I am not mistaken. $600 per individual filing. In a joint filing $600 each for husband and wife, $300 for each kid (ceiling?)
more...
bmoni
08-20 03:21 PM
@acecupid: Thanks for the response. For me it is Chicago consulate it will take 10-15 days.
which comes pretty close to my travel date. As you mentioned i do hope it will not be a problem.
Also today I talked to the Indian consulate in Chicago they told me I can travel without any problem. As long as the passport is valid even it is the last day of the validity I should be fine with the travel. There shouldn't be a problem with the immigration officers during travel based on that.
@kanakabyraju: Thanks for the advise. I might try that.
For a valid visa stamp you need a passport with six month validity. But I have not seen any where for traveling you need a six month validity. If you personally experienced any problem while traveling with less than six valid passport. please post your experience it will help me and others.
Thanks,
which comes pretty close to my travel date. As you mentioned i do hope it will not be a problem.
Also today I talked to the Indian consulate in Chicago they told me I can travel without any problem. As long as the passport is valid even it is the last day of the validity I should be fine with the travel. There shouldn't be a problem with the immigration officers during travel based on that.
@kanakabyraju: Thanks for the advise. I might try that.
For a valid visa stamp you need a passport with six month validity. But I have not seen any where for traveling you need a six month validity. If you personally experienced any problem while traveling with less than six valid passport. please post your experience it will help me and others.
Thanks,
hair poems for your est friend.
maddila
07-30 02:31 PM
One of my friends had the same problem from Madras consulate. they eventually called him to come back with the passport after 3 weeks. You will get it but it's just matter of time.........
more...
harikapraveen
10-29 04:40 PM
Wherever you go for stamping, there will be someone on the counter before interview is conducted by visa officer who reviews the documents.
In Chennai, there will be a counter after appointment letter is shown. This is where the documents will be verified. When you reach this point, inform about the discrepancies and they will take care.
My parents went to Chennai with wrong DOB. This was rectified by someone on the counter themselfs and no problems in the interview as well.:)
In Chennai, there will be a counter after appointment letter is shown. This is where the documents will be verified. When you reach this point, inform about the discrepancies and they will take care.
My parents went to Chennai with wrong DOB. This was rectified by someone on the counter themselfs and no problems in the interview as well.:)
hot poems for a est friend. i
FredG
May 1st, 2005, 01:58 PM
I'd say you captured the action just fine. All that bird tracking was probably good practice for this.
more...
house i love you est friend poems.
alex77
10-07 04:55 PM
Folks, Please let me know if anyone knows where to send G-28 form if one wants to revoke attorney and be one's own representative?
tattoo poems for my est friend.
TheCanadian
01-02 09:12 PM
F'ing a! I might not even have to lift a finger :run:
more...
pictures birthday poems for a est
gccube
08-30 05:05 PM
EB2 or EB3?
dresses est friend poems
gopalkrishan
08-06 03:59 PM
This topic is posted under General Information > Interesting Topics
Billu did not post this under immigration matter, so dont read it if you dont want to.
with fear of sounding rude to Veerufs .. I must say that i concur and whole heartedly agree with Austingc :p
Billu did not post this under immigration matter, so dont read it if you dont want to.
with fear of sounding rude to Veerufs .. I must say that i concur and whole heartedly agree with Austingc :p
more...
makeup Cute Best Friend Poem
valleywag
07-30 01:21 PM
is this common for all those who have a primary vendor between the employer and the client ? or they are just doing it in random ?
Though i live in hyd i chose delhi for appointment coz previous stampings from delhi had no issues :(
Though i live in hyd i chose delhi for appointment coz previous stampings from delhi had no issues :(
girlfriend poems for your est friend. poems for my est friend.
solaris27
10-15 01:46 PM
No you can't
hairstyles poems for a est friend
black_logs
03-25 08:34 AM
TOI is the champion of these kind of nonsense, after S.1932 was passed by the senate they published an article saying 'Good news, A bill for Green card increase, H1B increase ..... have been passed by U.S. lawmakers' with no mention of house hurdle etc. I fail to digest that the reporter who is writing the article doesn't know, after the bills get passed in the Senate they go to Congress. But it's TOI they can do that.
Today Times of India has published an article "Immigrants cost Americans low-skilled jobs". They have referred a study by Center for Immigration Studies. I have already thrashed TOI for publishing such nonsense and urged them to stop helping anti-immigrant groups by publishing such stupid articles. All members please post comments on this article and ask TOI to stop nonsense. whether low-skilled or high skilled this is going to help anti-immigrant cause.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1463861.cms
Today Times of India has published an article "Immigrants cost Americans low-skilled jobs". They have referred a study by Center for Immigration Studies. I have already thrashed TOI for publishing such nonsense and urged them to stop helping anti-immigrant groups by publishing such stupid articles. All members please post comments on this article and ask TOI to stop nonsense. whether low-skilled or high skilled this is going to help anti-immigrant cause.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1463861.cms
gc_chahiye
10-09 04:22 PM
Hi,
I called up and spoke to the IO and asked him about the rejection of I-485 due to old fees and he defended that the application would be rejected without the new fee, I tried to explain him about the July bulletin 107 and that people who were on employment based category and whose dates were current should have used only the OLD FEES till August 17th, he did not agree about it and I did not force the issue!
If the IO officers don't agree about the right facts how would the people who just check the fee! I am sure that is why my application was rejected!
I am not sure what to do! Can somebody suggest anything!
How to let those people know that when we applied in August there was a bulletin which said that we can apply with old fee!
ask them to look at Questions 7 and 9 in USCISs own FAQ related to 485 filing and the July VB:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf [pdf]
Q7: Which fees apply to I-765 and I-131 applications associated with AOS applications filed on or after July 30th under the July Bulletin?
A7. The fee of $180 for Forms I-765 and the fee of $170 for Form I-131 will remain in effect for those aliens eligible to file an employment-based adjustment of status application pursuant to July Visa Bulletin No. 107. These fees will remain in effect for all such applications filed between July 17 � August 17, 2007.
Q9: Will customers eligible to file adjustment applications under July Visa Bulletin No. 107 have the option to pay the NEW filings fees in connection with adjustment applications filed on or after July 30, 2007 and on or before August 17, 2007?
A9. No, customers will not have the option of paying the new filing fees for adjustment applications.
USCIS has determined that aliens in employment-based categories filing applications pursuant to July Visa Bulletin No. 107 should be subject to the pre-July 30, 2007 fees as that fee schedule would have applied had aliens been allowed to file throughout the month of July
I called up and spoke to the IO and asked him about the rejection of I-485 due to old fees and he defended that the application would be rejected without the new fee, I tried to explain him about the July bulletin 107 and that people who were on employment based category and whose dates were current should have used only the OLD FEES till August 17th, he did not agree about it and I did not force the issue!
If the IO officers don't agree about the right facts how would the people who just check the fee! I am sure that is why my application was rejected!
I am not sure what to do! Can somebody suggest anything!
How to let those people know that when we applied in August there was a bulletin which said that we can apply with old fee!
ask them to look at Questions 7 and 9 in USCISs own FAQ related to 485 filing and the July VB:
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/EBFAQ1.pdf [pdf]
Q7: Which fees apply to I-765 and I-131 applications associated with AOS applications filed on or after July 30th under the July Bulletin?
A7. The fee of $180 for Forms I-765 and the fee of $170 for Form I-131 will remain in effect for those aliens eligible to file an employment-based adjustment of status application pursuant to July Visa Bulletin No. 107. These fees will remain in effect for all such applications filed between July 17 � August 17, 2007.
Q9: Will customers eligible to file adjustment applications under July Visa Bulletin No. 107 have the option to pay the NEW filings fees in connection with adjustment applications filed on or after July 30, 2007 and on or before August 17, 2007?
A9. No, customers will not have the option of paying the new filing fees for adjustment applications.
USCIS has determined that aliens in employment-based categories filing applications pursuant to July Visa Bulletin No. 107 should be subject to the pre-July 30, 2007 fees as that fee schedule would have applied had aliens been allowed to file throughout the month of July
chantu
08-02 01:00 PM
Fedex is the best. Do not use DHL ever. I got bad experience with DHL. They took a week to deliver the docs. But fedex delivered it within 2 days. Now I know, always go with fedex.
No comments:
Post a Comment