alisa
12-17 12:10 PM
My Labor was rotting in BEC, and so I moved to another role, and will now have a PD of 2007 as a new labor will be filed, Rest of the world, EB-3......
Got any predictions?????
Mine are 1 year (if legislation goes through), to 12 years (if it does not.)
Got any predictions?????
Mine are 1 year (if legislation goes through), to 12 years (if it does not.)
immuser
11-01 06:26 PM
I have seen many discussions were people talk about going to Canada, UK etc.
It is good to know what your options are other than US.
It is good to know what your options are other than US.
jcrajput
10-02 11:11 AM
I will need to refile I485 application for myself and my wife. It was rejeted in error from USCIS. I have question:
Should I re-file with old fees or new fees? Any one can help me here?
My application was originally filed at NSC on July 2nd.
Thank you,
Should I re-file with old fees or new fees? Any one can help me here?
My application was originally filed at NSC on July 2nd.
Thank you,
apb
09-05 02:27 PM
This should go to top of queue. BUMPING
more...
hpandey
07-09 11:02 AM
In a perfect world you would return your employers 8K and he would give you your last two weeks salary.
But we all know the world is not perfect.
Imagine if instead of you benefitting from the accountant mistake were on the receiving end and you were underpaid by 8K in 2 years. Would you still say that it is the accountant's and company's problem and nothing to do with you .
But we all know the world is not perfect.
Imagine if instead of you benefitting from the accountant mistake were on the receiving end and you were underpaid by 8K in 2 years. Would you still say that it is the accountant's and company's problem and nothing to do with you .
blackberry
01-21 02:47 PM
Can soneone help me with this question.....please....
My husband is on H1B and I'm on Ead.....both of us have expired I-94 stamps.....we are planing to go to our home country this year...we want to apply for advance parole......my question is.....can we enter U.S both of us with AD?
I read on Uscis website that you need to have personal reason in order to go to your country while I-485 is pending....and you have to prove your personal reason.....is that true....we want only to visit our parents.
Thanks in advance!
I came back last year December, no issues, No questions asked. The entire process was very smooth.
Just remember to carry all your documents.
My husband is on H1B and I'm on Ead.....both of us have expired I-94 stamps.....we are planing to go to our home country this year...we want to apply for advance parole......my question is.....can we enter U.S both of us with AD?
I read on Uscis website that you need to have personal reason in order to go to your country while I-485 is pending....and you have to prove your personal reason.....is that true....we want only to visit our parents.
Thanks in advance!
I came back last year December, no issues, No questions asked. The entire process was very smooth.
Just remember to carry all your documents.
more...
alisa
12-17 12:10 PM
My Labor was rotting in BEC, and so I moved to another role, and will now have a PD of 2007 as a new labor will be filed, Rest of the world, EB-3......
Got any predictions?????
Mine are 1 year (if legislation goes through), to 12 years (if it does not.)
Got any predictions?????
Mine are 1 year (if legislation goes through), to 12 years (if it does not.)
spicy_guy
07-30 02:27 PM
Can someone translate (if you have patience)?
more...
NJpatel
08-04 04:11 PM
In this case you can not port the PD unless your subsequent I140 is approved ( ie your Feb-08 I-140 is approved) Once this get approved, you can port to already approved EB2-I140 to make your EB2-140 PD same as your EB3-I140 PD.
My earlier post had misleading information. I filed my I-140 in Feb'08 and I-485 in June'08. I didn't file my I-140/485 concurrently. I-140 is still pending and in my application PD transfer was requested.
Thanks again to all your responses.
My earlier post had misleading information. I filed my I-140 in Feb'08 and I-485 in June'08. I didn't file my I-140/485 concurrently. I-140 is still pending and in my application PD transfer was requested.
Thanks again to all your responses.
GC_ASP
07-20 08:25 AM
You don't need any support from your ex-employer for your wife's 485. But you need your 485 receipt for this along with the affidavit and marriage certificate.
more...
inderman
10-16 06:12 PM
Its probably going to be difficult to justify at a later time how the job role can still be the same if ur title changes from Manager to S/w Engineer...
It would make sense to request ur new employer to alter the title to s'th like S/w specialist or s'th like that... which can more easily b justified as an alternative to the earlier job title.
Again, u need to pay even more attention to ensure that the job role is identical becoz that is what matters more...
Applying AC 21 will save u in case ur old employer tries to revoke 140...
It would make sense to request ur new employer to alter the title to s'th like S/w specialist or s'th like that... which can more easily b justified as an alternative to the earlier job title.
Again, u need to pay even more attention to ensure that the job role is identical becoz that is what matters more...
Applying AC 21 will save u in case ur old employer tries to revoke 140...
snathan
05-19 06:57 PM
I am also travelling with the family in June for a couple of months !
the murthy link and this thread over all is helpful !
Our company's lawyer mentioned that if the 485 gets approved while abroad then when I come back I just tell the officer at the entry point that I was out and do not have the card in hand. So I enter using AP.
I also asked him (and in another thread here ) if I can have the card mailed to India by a friend and he said yes, I can do that if I am comfortable with it.
On a different note , one other person mentioned to me that one has to be in the US when the 485 application is approved or else they can reject the application, but that does not sound true and nor I have heard anything like that from the lawyer or in any of the forums !!
Then whats the purpose of AP....?
the murthy link and this thread over all is helpful !
Our company's lawyer mentioned that if the 485 gets approved while abroad then when I come back I just tell the officer at the entry point that I was out and do not have the card in hand. So I enter using AP.
I also asked him (and in another thread here ) if I can have the card mailed to India by a friend and he said yes, I can do that if I am comfortable with it.
On a different note , one other person mentioned to me that one has to be in the US when the 485 application is approved or else they can reject the application, but that does not sound true and nor I have heard anything like that from the lawyer or in any of the forums !!
Then whats the purpose of AP....?
more...
jonty_11
07-16 05:10 PM
I think people out here have nothing to do. Please concentrate on the cor eissues... and participate in IV campaigns..High FIVE for one...
When new processign dates come out you will know have patience.
When new processign dates come out you will know have patience.
.jpg "desktop wallpaper")
logiclife
02-15 06:15 PM
The Backlog centers should be ashamed of themselves. They make the state DMVs look like an efficient government departments.
18 more months!!! And they congratulate themselves?
You know, there is a saying "If you have infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters for an infinite amount of time, eventually they would come up with the exact creation of Shakespeare".
18 more months!!! And they congratulate themselves?
You know, there is a saying "If you have infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters for an infinite amount of time, eventually they would come up with the exact creation of Shakespeare".
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.
HRPRO
02-21 09:51 AM
Jagan,
If you go in person, the Consular Officer addresses most issues in the afternoon. You could ask for a meeting with him and explain your situation.
I think this will be the easiest resolution.
Hope you get your passport soon.
If you go in person, the Consular Officer addresses most issues in the afternoon. You could ask for a meeting with him and explain your situation.
I think this will be the easiest resolution.
Hope you get your passport soon.
more...
macml
01-29 05:44 PM
Sorry, I can't help you out on how to fill out the application. My lawyer did it for me.
sen
09-04 09:59 AM
I have a question for you guys. My wife was pregnant when she took her medicals. So skin test was not performed on her. Do i need to wait for the RFE or is it possible to update USCIS with another I-693 with the TB test?
lostinbeta
10-20 10:09 PM
That is very nice, but as mdipi said, that center text is way out of place.
It is just.... there.... the font, size and everything just doesn't fit.
If you make that text grungier and change the font it should look better.
It is just.... there.... the font, size and everything just doesn't fit.
If you make that text grungier and change the font it should look better.
starving_dog
06-05 07:42 AM
Did anyone notice the change in the wording on I-485 adjustment of status? It used to say that it takes between 850 and 900 days to process this type of request. Now it just says that the will notify you when a decision has been made. This change was just made in the last week or two. Curious.
Ann Ruben
04-17 12:22 PM
As you understand there is no magic correct solution to this situation, but, whichever decision you make about which line your mother-in-law stands in, she should be well prepared to document her intention to return to her home abroad after her visit to the US. Documents she should be prepared to show could include: proof of home ownership or long term lease abroad, proof of bank accounts abroad, proof of car ownership abroad, fixed date return ticket, proof of family abroad--husband and/or other children/grandchildren, proof of some specific event she plans to attend abroad such as wedding or other invitations, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment