ubetman
08-05 10:31 AM
Thanks Tampacoolie...I don't know how I have to persuade my lawyer/representative...guess have to deal with him carefully and politely...they think that we are the lawyers and we know everything..ofcourse may be ...sometimes esp at this point, we have to notify...if we miss this opportunity, no way to appeal also..and u never know when PDs will be current again....
Anyhow thanks guyz for ur suggestions...
Anyhow thanks guyz for ur suggestions...
wallpaper Swotti - Jaguar S-Type,
lostinbeta
10-21 01:51 AM
lol. Yeah I know your just kidding about that 3rd grader stuff mr. Iworkedforeidosandnike :P
nabs501
07-27 04:31 PM
Did you put in your A# OR THE Petition Number 3 in that form. Please respond.
I did put in my A# which I then thought was same as the A# listed on the EAD for OPT. Obviously, I was wrong.
My point is, it's OK if you don't put in your A#.
But it would help if you put the receipt #.
They just use all of this information to retireve your record. If there's some information missing such as the receipt number, it would just take them longer to retrieve your records.
Try to get atleast the I140 receipt number from your employer. Dont worry about the A# (just put in NONE). I think they can very well dig out your application based on the receipt number.
Even if you dont get the receipt number, go ahead file the form and provide as much details as you possibly can regarding the I140 petition; attach a separate sheet if needed.
Dont forget to get the form notarized.
I did put in my A# which I then thought was same as the A# listed on the EAD for OPT. Obviously, I was wrong.
My point is, it's OK if you don't put in your A#.
But it would help if you put the receipt #.
They just use all of this information to retireve your record. If there's some information missing such as the receipt number, it would just take them longer to retrieve your records.
Try to get atleast the I140 receipt number from your employer. Dont worry about the A# (just put in NONE). I think they can very well dig out your application based on the receipt number.
Even if you dont get the receipt number, go ahead file the form and provide as much details as you possibly can regarding the I140 petition; attach a separate sheet if needed.
Dont forget to get the form notarized.
2011 jaguar s type
micofrost
04-16 05:01 PM
This is my first post here but I am silent reader for past two years. I got my GC approved couple of weeks ago. A week before that, I applied for EAD and AP renewal. Is there any way to ask USCIS to refund the money back since they have debited the money from my account and also received the receipt notice for me and my wife as well? I need your valuable suggestion here,
Thanks
Call uscis and ask them send the refund to IV. Anyway, the money is gone from your a/c.
Thanks
Call uscis and ask them send the refund to IV. Anyway, the money is gone from your a/c.
more...
bp333
11-05 02:18 PM
Just voted, thank you for sharing. I'll spread the word..
yabadaba
06-18 12:29 PM
right.. thats what i thought.. thanks for your opinion.....at least that means i was thinking along the same lines. i ll doubl check with my attorney.
thx again
thx again
more...
ritwik_ind
11-11 11:30 AM
Where are the winners posted? It's already 11th !
2010 Maisto Diecast Model Jaguar S
sanju
04-30 10:02 PM
What is the agenda now?
someone just woke up after 8 months, now asking the agenda, not willing to spare a penny or bring in energy, but wants an "update" about the date & time he will get his GC in mail. Is that something new, NO, its been a consistent behavior, that's why I never liked gjoe.
.
someone just woke up after 8 months, now asking the agenda, not willing to spare a penny or bring in energy, but wants an "update" about the date & time he will get his GC in mail. Is that something new, NO, its been a consistent behavior, that's why I never liked gjoe.
.
more...
sharadara
09-01 12:05 AM
Hi,
Hoping to get your opinion on my situation.
I am an Indian citizen, working in the US on an H1B, moving to Spain on a resident visa. My current US employer wants me to continue working from Spain. However, my Spanish visa doesn't permit me to work for a Spanish company, and my US employer doesn't have an office in Spain so they can't apply for a work permit for me. They do have Indian offices, though.
What are my options here? Some of the avenues I am exploring:
a. The company's Indian offices hire me as an external consultant and pay my Indian bank account. I declare my income in India and pay taxes in India, even though I reside in Spain.
b. The company (US or India) hires me as a Spanish consultant and pay me in Spain.
c. Any other opinion
I would greatly appreciate your opinion on my situation, or any references you can give me that I can discuss this with.
Thanks very much for your help.
- Sharada
Hoping to get your opinion on my situation.
I am an Indian citizen, working in the US on an H1B, moving to Spain on a resident visa. My current US employer wants me to continue working from Spain. However, my Spanish visa doesn't permit me to work for a Spanish company, and my US employer doesn't have an office in Spain so they can't apply for a work permit for me. They do have Indian offices, though.
What are my options here? Some of the avenues I am exploring:
a. The company's Indian offices hire me as an external consultant and pay my Indian bank account. I declare my income in India and pay taxes in India, even though I reside in Spain.
b. The company (US or India) hires me as a Spanish consultant and pay me in Spain.
c. Any other opinion
I would greatly appreciate your opinion on my situation, or any references you can give me that I can discuss this with.
Thanks very much for your help.
- Sharada
hair 2007 jaguar s-type concept
newuser
05-05 12:23 PM
Subscription Date: May 5, 2009
Time: 09:02:11 PDT
Status: Completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscription Terms:
$25.00 USD
Time: 09:02:11 PDT
Status: Completed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscription Terms:
$25.00 USD
more...
bbct
02-01 03:13 PM
Thanks for each on every one of you!
some gave me red, its ok.
I had a problem which I though of sharing, may be some one could provide some insight.
It may be my bad that I have posted in wrong thread, but that does not have to mean to give red.
But any ways, for every one who gave red and for every who did leave a message, I thank each and every one of you and wish you good luck on getting your GC.
Could you please share the city and apartment complex name so other people are aware and would be careful in moving?
some gave me red, its ok.
I had a problem which I though of sharing, may be some one could provide some insight.
It may be my bad that I have posted in wrong thread, but that does not have to mean to give red.
But any ways, for every one who gave red and for every who did leave a message, I thank each and every one of you and wish you good luck on getting your GC.
Could you please share the city and apartment complex name so other people are aware and would be careful in moving?
hot JAGUAR S-TYPE 1999
black_logs
01-30 09:48 AM
It's too late for that. We have so much of paperwork allready done!!!
more...
house Photos de Jaguar S-Type 1999
pthoko
05-31 09:30 AM
EVERYBODY PLS PLS CONTRIBUTE....
pappu pappu is offline
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,042
pappu is just really nice pappu is just really nice pappu is just really nice pappu is just really nice pappu is just really nice
Default May 31, 2007
May 31, 2007
Dear Immigration voice members,
We have made good progress in our membership base over the past 2 weeks. We are now more than 13,320 strong. Our members are our greatest asset and our grassroots efforts make us unique. It would be in the best interest of this community to use our energies by telling more people about this effort so that more members could join this effort.
During the past 2 weeks we had about 20 media leads due to the efforts of our members and the media drive. This has translated into about 10 media interviews that are mostly on a national scale. There are some more media interviews in the process and we hope to have them published soon. Let us continue this media drive with enthusiasm.
Our webfaxes, phone and email campaign has also been working. The response to it has not been as per our expectations yet. However even with limited participation we did hear comments about our campaign from some Senator offices. Hope more members take part in these campaigns. There have been some technical errors faced by few members this week. We have solved those iissues.We are also now going to pay more for a �Premium� service (3 times we pay now) so that the webfaxes can be sent smoothly without �backlogs� in the system.
Its been more than a week since we started our funding drive for the CIR bill in Senate. We want to go all out with all our might and resources to get our provisions in the new CIR bill. As members have already seen how much this bill hurts our interests and if we do not do something ourselves we do not have much support from outside. The H1B increase provision has much attention, support for various lobbying groups and opposition at the same time from various anti-immigrant organizations. However our provisions and cause require much needed attention and support in order for us to succeed. Our cause is just and few technical changes can very well fix the problems faced by 1.1 million high-skilled applicants waiting for their greencards. For most lawmaker high skilled immigration issues only meant increasing H-1B numbers. Most lawmakers are now aware of employment based green card issues and are aware or organized effort called Immigration Voice. We have been able to convince large technology and healthcare companies/groups to recognize that employment based green card delays is a massive issue. But this is not enough for our provisions to come on the floor and be passed. Tremendous investment in lobbying efforts is required in the current CIR that is a disastrous bill for our community.
There is a possibility that some of our provisions may get included in this CIR. Some of the amendments on Thomas already have some of our provisions along with H1B provisions. However the chance of those amendments passing is not certain.We are working hard to get something done. IV team is committed to explore every possibility and actively working towards that end. But please understand that it is not easy to get something done. There are hurdles we face due to the politics of the situation and intense lobbying of anti-immigrant organizations that are well funded. This is a hard reality. To get something done, it is of utmost importance that more members actively participate in this effort, contribute again and get new members to join and contribute to Immigration Voice. Each member visiting this forum needs to understand that it is your responsibility to actively participate in this effort because this is your effort, because this effort will solve problems that are yours and mine.
Due to the hard work of immigration voice and its members over the past 1.5 year, many lawmakers are now ready to listen and do the needful for us. We are also working with several like minded organizations and groups to help our community. But that is not enough to get our provisions passed with a majority vote. It can be because we have not yet done our part to the extent it is required to collectively petition lawmakers with our grievances. This is one more reason why more active participation and contribution is required.
The point is that Immigration Voice is doing everything that is possible. IV Core team member�s green card application is also pending and like other members, IV core team members are very passionate and motivated about solving the green card problems. We work hard during our regular work hours and on weekends, take vacations to travel on IV work and pay for the trip from our own pockets. We do this because we are also in this greencard mess like everyone else, and we feel responsible and commited to this effort. We all know that it is difficult to change things in Washington, especially when we are a small group. But we have experienced that it is possible that we can get our provisions passed. Immigration Voice needs more resources and this effort needs more active members. To achieve this, we need more resources in terms of contribution from all our members. (Note: Immigration Voice is Tax exempt under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, since Immigration Voice is not an organization as described in section 170(c) of the code, donors may not deduct contributions that have been made) Immigration Voice would appeal all new members to please contribute and of the members who have already contributed in the past to please consider contributing again.
With all our hard work over the past 1.5 year, we are well poised to make a difference and represent the high-skilled immigrant community in DC. Media also calls us for comments on any Immigration related news story. Other organizations and groups contact us for collaboration and to seek help. Many lawmaker offices now know us and our cause. And there is a lot that has happened since we started. Most of these things we are not able to disclose on the open forums. But please understand that we need more funds to continue this effort so that we could all see our provisions into law. Immigration Voice is not about one, five twenty of fifty of us. It is about all of us currently in the queue and those that are about to join the queue. Lobbying is very expensive and if we have hired the top lobbyists there is to help us, there are investments we need to make for it too. Now, if this is any indication of how far we have come, I assure all members that we can do it, together.
In the past 2 weeks we got contributions ranging mostly between $10 - $100 and few $200 from roughly 100 members. I�m sure we all can do much better than that. Such amount can at best support hosting this website, pay for webfaxes and buy few hours of lobbying time from the best lobbyists there is in this country. Lobbying is the most important part of our effort and it can make a difference for our provision. Getting an amendment from a Senator�s office on Thomas is not our aim. We need to work hard to get it on the floor and be voted by a majority. This is a big task and huge lobbying effort is required if we have to go all out to get something done in this CIR bill.
Please be assured that IV core team is doing whatever is possible with the limited resources. And regardless of what happens in the next few months, Immigration voice would urge all members and readers of these forums to please contribute to this effort. Because what IV core team will be able to achieve will ultimately depend on how much trust you put in this effort.
Your IV team
pappu pappu is offline
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,042
pappu is just really nice pappu is just really nice pappu is just really nice pappu is just really nice pappu is just really nice
Default May 31, 2007
May 31, 2007
Dear Immigration voice members,
We have made good progress in our membership base over the past 2 weeks. We are now more than 13,320 strong. Our members are our greatest asset and our grassroots efforts make us unique. It would be in the best interest of this community to use our energies by telling more people about this effort so that more members could join this effort.
During the past 2 weeks we had about 20 media leads due to the efforts of our members and the media drive. This has translated into about 10 media interviews that are mostly on a national scale. There are some more media interviews in the process and we hope to have them published soon. Let us continue this media drive with enthusiasm.
Our webfaxes, phone and email campaign has also been working. The response to it has not been as per our expectations yet. However even with limited participation we did hear comments about our campaign from some Senator offices. Hope more members take part in these campaigns. There have been some technical errors faced by few members this week. We have solved those iissues.We are also now going to pay more for a �Premium� service (3 times we pay now) so that the webfaxes can be sent smoothly without �backlogs� in the system.
Its been more than a week since we started our funding drive for the CIR bill in Senate. We want to go all out with all our might and resources to get our provisions in the new CIR bill. As members have already seen how much this bill hurts our interests and if we do not do something ourselves we do not have much support from outside. The H1B increase provision has much attention, support for various lobbying groups and opposition at the same time from various anti-immigrant organizations. However our provisions and cause require much needed attention and support in order for us to succeed. Our cause is just and few technical changes can very well fix the problems faced by 1.1 million high-skilled applicants waiting for their greencards. For most lawmaker high skilled immigration issues only meant increasing H-1B numbers. Most lawmakers are now aware of employment based green card issues and are aware or organized effort called Immigration Voice. We have been able to convince large technology and healthcare companies/groups to recognize that employment based green card delays is a massive issue. But this is not enough for our provisions to come on the floor and be passed. Tremendous investment in lobbying efforts is required in the current CIR that is a disastrous bill for our community.
There is a possibility that some of our provisions may get included in this CIR. Some of the amendments on Thomas already have some of our provisions along with H1B provisions. However the chance of those amendments passing is not certain.We are working hard to get something done. IV team is committed to explore every possibility and actively working towards that end. But please understand that it is not easy to get something done. There are hurdles we face due to the politics of the situation and intense lobbying of anti-immigrant organizations that are well funded. This is a hard reality. To get something done, it is of utmost importance that more members actively participate in this effort, contribute again and get new members to join and contribute to Immigration Voice. Each member visiting this forum needs to understand that it is your responsibility to actively participate in this effort because this is your effort, because this effort will solve problems that are yours and mine.
Due to the hard work of immigration voice and its members over the past 1.5 year, many lawmakers are now ready to listen and do the needful for us. We are also working with several like minded organizations and groups to help our community. But that is not enough to get our provisions passed with a majority vote. It can be because we have not yet done our part to the extent it is required to collectively petition lawmakers with our grievances. This is one more reason why more active participation and contribution is required.
The point is that Immigration Voice is doing everything that is possible. IV Core team member�s green card application is also pending and like other members, IV core team members are very passionate and motivated about solving the green card problems. We work hard during our regular work hours and on weekends, take vacations to travel on IV work and pay for the trip from our own pockets. We do this because we are also in this greencard mess like everyone else, and we feel responsible and commited to this effort. We all know that it is difficult to change things in Washington, especially when we are a small group. But we have experienced that it is possible that we can get our provisions passed. Immigration Voice needs more resources and this effort needs more active members. To achieve this, we need more resources in terms of contribution from all our members. (Note: Immigration Voice is Tax exempt under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, since Immigration Voice is not an organization as described in section 170(c) of the code, donors may not deduct contributions that have been made) Immigration Voice would appeal all new members to please contribute and of the members who have already contributed in the past to please consider contributing again.
With all our hard work over the past 1.5 year, we are well poised to make a difference and represent the high-skilled immigrant community in DC. Media also calls us for comments on any Immigration related news story. Other organizations and groups contact us for collaboration and to seek help. Many lawmaker offices now know us and our cause. And there is a lot that has happened since we started. Most of these things we are not able to disclose on the open forums. But please understand that we need more funds to continue this effort so that we could all see our provisions into law. Immigration Voice is not about one, five twenty of fifty of us. It is about all of us currently in the queue and those that are about to join the queue. Lobbying is very expensive and if we have hired the top lobbyists there is to help us, there are investments we need to make for it too. Now, if this is any indication of how far we have come, I assure all members that we can do it, together.
In the past 2 weeks we got contributions ranging mostly between $10 - $100 and few $200 from roughly 100 members. I�m sure we all can do much better than that. Such amount can at best support hosting this website, pay for webfaxes and buy few hours of lobbying time from the best lobbyists there is in this country. Lobbying is the most important part of our effort and it can make a difference for our provision. Getting an amendment from a Senator�s office on Thomas is not our aim. We need to work hard to get it on the floor and be voted by a majority. This is a big task and huge lobbying effort is required if we have to go all out to get something done in this CIR bill.
Please be assured that IV core team is doing whatever is possible with the limited resources. And regardless of what happens in the next few months, Immigration voice would urge all members and readers of these forums to please contribute to this effort. Because what IV core team will be able to achieve will ultimately depend on how much trust you put in this effort.
Your IV team
tattoo S-TYPE 2.5 MANUAL In Stock: 1
unseenguy
06-09 12:53 PM
When i went to Mumbai last december i got my H1B stamped. while coming to US i showed the POE my H1B stamped visa he asked me for Advanced parol document and i was Parolled.When i asked him i have a H1B stamped in my passport why do i need to be parolled. He answered AP has a higher preference than H1B.
the bottom line is " H1B stamping will not be considered for your entry". Its just a stamp for your satisfaction.
I am not going to stamp my H1B again. 18 months back when i came from Vancouver Canada the POE let me in by AP not by H1B visa. I asked him about my valid H1B and the POE told me you can enter using either one but we prefer AP.
If you are a local from mumbai then its okay to attend a interview and get stamped. They don't ask much in my interview. In my last interview they asked me in the picture you have a mouthstach and now you are clean shaven. So that is the level of questions asked at the interview. Its just 2-3 hours of work or maybe half a day if you wish to do it.
One more proble i went through at mumbai consulte, The dates were posted 1 week in advance and then a local person has to go and submit the document to the consulate. the FEDEX from US to India would be costing around 68 to 150 dollars and it needs to be reached within 1-2 days (i.e. 3 days before the interview). I got it done somehow.
J thomas
I entered on H1 visa this year. Me and my wife both arrived at the airport, I told the officer, my wife has AP and I have H1 visa. To which he said, where is your AP. I said, I have it but I prefer to use H1. Is it possible? He said thats fine. Your choice.
the bottom line is " H1B stamping will not be considered for your entry". Its just a stamp for your satisfaction.
I am not going to stamp my H1B again. 18 months back when i came from Vancouver Canada the POE let me in by AP not by H1B visa. I asked him about my valid H1B and the POE told me you can enter using either one but we prefer AP.
If you are a local from mumbai then its okay to attend a interview and get stamped. They don't ask much in my interview. In my last interview they asked me in the picture you have a mouthstach and now you are clean shaven. So that is the level of questions asked at the interview. Its just 2-3 hours of work or maybe half a day if you wish to do it.
One more proble i went through at mumbai consulte, The dates were posted 1 week in advance and then a local person has to go and submit the document to the consulate. the FEDEX from US to India would be costing around 68 to 150 dollars and it needs to be reached within 1-2 days (i.e. 3 days before the interview). I got it done somehow.
J thomas
I entered on H1 visa this year. Me and my wife both arrived at the airport, I told the officer, my wife has AP and I have H1 visa. To which he said, where is your AP. I said, I have it but I prefer to use H1. Is it possible? He said thats fine. Your choice.
more...
pictures JAGUAR S TYPE 1999
gcdreamer05
02-13 10:50 AM
do you know what is the cost of filing a LCA amendment, and is it necessary to take a copy of that LCA and hang it on the client notice board ????????
dresses YAHOO / JAGUAR / S TYPE
cjain
10-30 05:49 PM
is it from the receipt date or notice date?
more...
makeup YAHOO / JAGUAR / S TYPE
rajpatelemail
12-09 05:43 PM
yeah
this guy can not even dare to reveal id....
pity pity....
To avoid this type of d***less Buttheads comments, we are requesting to reveal ids.
Comments and reds are very much fine and apprciated... No issues.
So that we can learn from others comments.
But Revealing ID is very very important.
see my comments , this d***less is giving comments and do not have spine to reveal his/her id, yet.
this guy can not even dare to reveal id....
pity pity....
To avoid this type of d***less Buttheads comments, we are requesting to reveal ids.
Comments and reds are very much fine and apprciated... No issues.
So that we can learn from others comments.
But Revealing ID is very very important.
see my comments , this d***less is giving comments and do not have spine to reveal his/her id, yet.
girlfriend Rear Spoiler for Jaguar S-Type
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
hairstyles 102 Jaguar S type R (4200cc
MA001
10-30 01:31 PM
See this link, give your comments ( I suggest to be brief & to the point).
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/10/immigration_is_.html
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/10/immigration_is_.html
chem2
02-24 09:52 PM
what am I missing here? other than the hassle of getting paper copies filled out/ printed and the advantage of getting a refund a few weeks earlier, what is the advantage of e-filing?
meridiani.planum
04-04 01:35 AM
I just spoke with my company's attorney and she said that I shouldnt get RFE on my I-140. And just in case I get she will inform me and work with the counsel of my ported company to submit a response. Hooray....I am going. My employer is a big known MNC so the only RFE that I may get is exp letter which is very unlikely. With economy going down I dont want to wait for another 6 months for my I-140.
ok then go for it dude. Do keep us posted on how this works out, I hope you get your I-140 approved soon without an RFE..
ok then go for it dude. Do keep us posted on how this works out, I hope you get your I-140 approved soon without an RFE..
No comments:
Post a Comment