san3297
09-04 04:39 PM
Thanks for a positive reply at last.I checked my both 797s my current one ends on Nov 14 and my future one starts at Nov 15.So i see there is no gap.Hopefully i will be good i guess.I am planning to go to Charlotte Border Security and see if they say me the same.Any way your comments made me rethink that i will be ok.
wallpaper New spy jan http -hyundai-santa-fe santa http -hyundai-santa-fe Equipment of
prom2
10-30 08:25 AM
My lawyer received our AP's yesterday. They sent me a photocopy. Even though the TSC IO said that my application was approved on 10/17/2007, the travel document has a date of 10/11/2007. Good luck to you.
I haven't received them yet.
Thank you.
I haven't received them yet.
Thank you.
newlife2
09-19 10:16 PM
Guys, I was just laid off and have efiled i539 3 days after the termination date for a status change to F2. Now working on the application letter. Do you think I should mention the layoff in the letter?
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
I guess I will mention it in the letter to explain the whole situation and hope everything will be all right. Let me know if anybody disagrees asap, I will mail out the stuff with in next two days.
If I do mention it:
Con: The layoff might quickly catch the eyes of the immigration officer and if he want to check my status, he could find out the 3 days OOS.
Pro: My previous job was well paid. By mentioning it, I give the reason that why I want to stay at home as F2 instead of keeping the well paid job.
I guess I will mention it in the letter to explain the whole situation and hope everything will be all right. Let me know if anybody disagrees asap, I will mail out the stuff with in next two days.
2011 2012 Hyundai Azera Spy Shots,
bbct
02-11 09:05 PM
Works now and submitted the petition.
more...
yagw
07-11 07:18 PM
Yes. I guess, I read it wrong. I'm surprised that USCIS has outsourced this work to companies like these trusting them blindly. I was of the impression that the attorney used some USCIS website to file for PERM labors. And what kinda stupid co. was this...TESTING against prod database? Scary :eek:
USCIS didn't outsource; at least not to LawLogix. They are independent SW makers, much like TurboTax from Intuit :)
USCIS didn't outsource; at least not to LawLogix. They are independent SW makers, much like TurboTax from Intuit :)
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...
ek_akela
06-05 10:16 PM
can't make it to DC, made a contribution of 100$
Transaction ID: 9BC03733FT1686746
Transaction ID: 9BC03733FT1686746
2010 2010 Hyundai Santa Fe - click
tabletpc
07-29 10:59 PM
If the applicant has US degree its good to goto canand for stamping as it will be easy for them to varify degree documents.
Even i was scared...2 years back when i went to calgary for stamping. But having a US degree did help me. Later many of my frinds who din't had US degree had problems from cananda.
If u r going to canada its better to go with a approved h1B(I797) rather than directly asking them for extension.
Yes if it gets rejected...u need to take an appointment in india and return to US.
Even i was scared...2 years back when i went to calgary for stamping. But having a US degree did help me. Later many of my frinds who din't had US degree had problems from cananda.
If u r going to canada its better to go with a approved h1B(I797) rather than directly asking them for extension.
Yes if it gets rejected...u need to take an appointment in india and return to US.
more...
sanju_dba
09-15 09:58 AM
Not workable if we don't have the number of real active members, which I think is a big problem. We have 40K userid's and only 1000 votes.... doesn't' make sense. Either these id's are fake, obsolete or created in error.
so, with 1000 ppl...20 per months. = 20K.
In that case as h1techSlave said, 50% logic goes good irrespective of the target amount.
let it be 20k....200k , half the share goes to IV and half to the winners.
so, with 1000 ppl...20 per months. = 20K.
In that case as h1techSlave said, 50% logic goes good irrespective of the target amount.
let it be 20k....200k , half the share goes to IV and half to the winners.
hair Source: Hyundai Blog :: News,
chennaigc
11-21 04:27 PM
I have one question . What about the I-94 which comes with I-797 ? Can we use this as replacement?
more...
gc_peshwa
01-26 06:55 PM
Well done team IV! BTW has IV already published this email to newspapers? IIRC a free site like PRNEWSWIRE will also help :-)
hot New Hyundai Santa Fe 2012
pappu
05-11 12:51 PM
can we listen to this program online?
more...
house 2012 Hyundai Santa Fe
FredG
May 28th, 2007, 12:08 PM
Don't get discouraged, Lee. Sensor dust is part of the game, and we all have to deal with it.
If you haven't read about it yet, the generally accepted way to "see" the dust is to take a shot of a non-textured light object (I use the ceiling, or a clear sky). Put it in manual, set to a low iso, stop the aperture down to f/16 or even more, adjust ss for proper exposure (may be several seconds, but no problem if you are shooting a texture-less target.) Then you can zoom way in on the image and scout around to see the crud. This is a good way to check after you clean to see if you really got it all.
When cleaning, always try the least intrusive method first. I try the blower several times first. If there is still stuff left, I go in with the arctic butterfly. If there is still junk in the same spot after several passes, it is likely stuck there and I go after it with the lens pen. If it is not in the same spot, it is not stuck, so I keep after it with the brush followed by the blower.
If you haven't read about it yet, the generally accepted way to "see" the dust is to take a shot of a non-textured light object (I use the ceiling, or a clear sky). Put it in manual, set to a low iso, stop the aperture down to f/16 or even more, adjust ss for proper exposure (may be several seconds, but no problem if you are shooting a texture-less target.) Then you can zoom way in on the image and scout around to see the crud. This is a good way to check after you clean to see if you really got it all.
When cleaning, always try the least intrusive method first. I try the blower several times first. If there is still stuff left, I go in with the arctic butterfly. If there is still junk in the same spot after several passes, it is likely stuck there and I go after it with the lens pen. If it is not in the same spot, it is not stuck, so I keep after it with the brush followed by the blower.
tattoo 2012 Hyundai Genesis Coupe
gc_on_demand
04-04 07:38 AM
Lets post here if you are Post July 2007 applicant and have received email /mail from NVC ( National Visa Center ) to pay visa fees. Share your PD and other details you received from NVC.
People who have selected CP option in their I 140 application will get notice for fees from NVC.
Note : NVC sends out fee invoice in advance if they think date will be current for given applicant in near future. ( Approx 4-6 months ). I have read on internet that people with PD up to Nov 2007 are getting fees invoice. I want to track if any IV members beyond July 2007 got such invoice. This will be true indicator where date will land in last quarter.
People who have selected CP option in their I 140 application will get notice for fees from NVC.
Note : NVC sends out fee invoice in advance if they think date will be current for given applicant in near future. ( Approx 4-6 months ). I have read on internet that people with PD up to Nov 2007 are getting fees invoice. I want to track if any IV members beyond July 2007 got such invoice. This will be true indicator where date will land in last quarter.
more...
pictures Santa+fe+2012+pictures
kannan
12-02 01:33 AM
Can we apply Emergency Ap for official visit ?
dresses at this point photos from newcarproduct Hyundai+santa+fe+2012+photos
Dhundhun
07-10 06:30 PM
On I-797 from Y it doesn't have I-94 number on it anywhere. since its through consular processing.
In order to work with Y, i have to get stamped first then only pay stubbs are generated. This was the understanding, when owner of Y ,company Y Attorney and myself were in the conference call discussion.
Basically the H-1B with company Y required Change of Status (COS). I am not familiar with this type of situation - whether you can get change of status done in USA or not. If not I think this is a case, which requires Visa to be stamped in home country.
Could somebody throw more infromation on this? Thanks
In order to work with Y, i have to get stamped first then only pay stubbs are generated. This was the understanding, when owner of Y ,company Y Attorney and myself were in the conference call discussion.
Basically the H-1B with company Y required Change of Status (COS). I am not familiar with this type of situation - whether you can get change of status done in USA or not. If not I think this is a case, which requires Visa to be stamped in home country.
Could somebody throw more infromation on this? Thanks
more...
makeup 2012 Hyundai Sante Fe
Ann Ruben
04-17 12:32 PM
Yes, absolutely.
girlfriend hyundai santa fe 2011 images, hyundai santa fe 2012 photos,
s416504
12-03 03:02 PM
Does anyone knows if Person eligible for AC21 porting is eligible for unemployment benefit?
hairstyles 2012 Hyundai Sante Fe?
SunnySurya
08-21 02:31 PM
Just frustation my dear freind, just frustation, got any ideas about the Indian Job market?
Dude, what is your hidden agenda?. If you do not have any, then you got to make up your mind, you seem to get different thoughts every day. First was the lawsuit, second was a different lawsuit, now you say that something else suits you�
Dude, what is your hidden agenda?. If you do not have any, then you got to make up your mind, you seem to get different thoughts every day. First was the lawsuit, second was a different lawsuit, now you say that something else suits you�
gauravsh
04-28 06:52 PM
Thanks for the info.
Are you presently working?
J Thomas
yes, I am a permanent employee of a US based company since june 2006.
Are you presently working?
J Thomas
yes, I am a permanent employee of a US based company since june 2006.
TheCanadian
01-02 09:12 PM
F'ing a! I might not even have to lift a finger :run:
No comments:
Post a Comment