dce.deepak
09-18 05:44 PM
its not 800,000 its around 190,000 for all EB1,2,3
look at here May 2010 data
USCIS - Previous Pending Employment-Based I-485 Inventory (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=16551543455e5210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=16551543455e5210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD)
Family based is also heavily backlogged. How can there be flow of thousands of unused visas in Family Based for flow to Employment Based? Even in Family based there are categories 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4. The visas will first flow from top to bottom in Family Based. Wouldn't all the categories have to be current before any visas flow to Employment based? I read somewhere that the employment based backlog size is 800,000 applications. :confused: Let's say even if there is a small number of visa flow from Family Based to Employment Based, how can a small number of visa flow from Family Based to employment based backlog be sufficient to approve 800,000 applications?
look at here May 2010 data
USCIS - Previous Pending Employment-Based I-485 Inventory (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=16551543455e5210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=16551543455e5210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD)
Family based is also heavily backlogged. How can there be flow of thousands of unused visas in Family Based for flow to Employment Based? Even in Family based there are categories 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4. The visas will first flow from top to bottom in Family Based. Wouldn't all the categories have to be current before any visas flow to Employment based? I read somewhere that the employment based backlog size is 800,000 applications. :confused: Let's say even if there is a small number of visa flow from Family Based to Employment Based, how can a small number of visa flow from Family Based to employment based backlog be sufficient to approve 800,000 applications?
wallpaper Friends TV Show PSP Wallpaper
rajmalhotra
02-08 04:32 PM
Does anyone else know of other instances of this happening?
americandesi
10-04 01:41 PM
I've been living in the US for almost 4.5 years now. Last year I was flying from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and the security officer checking the Photo Id./boarding pass at LAX airport asked me the most intelligent question of the century.
"What's the purpose of your visit to Las Vegas?":confused:
I would expect this kind of question at immigration check for international arrivals and not on domestic departures. May be took his job too seriously.
I thought of saying "Gambling, booze and girls" but just answered "Sightseeing" and he let me go :D
I also had a similar experience in Canada where an officer asked the purpose of visit to Canada in spite of showing my Canadian PR card :)
"What's the purpose of your visit to Las Vegas?":confused:
I would expect this kind of question at immigration check for international arrivals and not on domestic departures. May be took his job too seriously.
I thought of saying "Gambling, booze and girls" but just answered "Sightseeing" and he let me go :D
I also had a similar experience in Canada where an officer asked the purpose of visit to Canada in spite of showing my Canadian PR card :)
2011 FRIENDS - friends, tv
nixstor
10-30 02:18 PM
Has any one sent an email to editor@usatoday.com?
more...
raysaikat
04-03 10:56 AM
Yes, they will return the old passport. You should always carry all your passports. However, only the latest passport is the "active" passport. Any new VISA stamp will be on the latest passport.
All VISAs stamped on your old passports remain on the old passports.
All VISAs stamped on your old passports remain on the old passports.
EkAurAaya
05-24 12:42 PM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-2072510,prtpage-1.cms
Great immigration debate has Indians steamed up
24 May, 2007 l 2200 hrs ISTlCHIDANAND RAJGHATTA/TIMES NEWS NETWORK
WASHINGTON: The fate of tens of thousands of high-skilled Indian professionals waiting to be permanent US residents is being sidelined in an immigration debate that is heavily tilted in favor of illegal workers, according to advocates of high-tech immigration and Indian activists.
Close to 450,000 Indian professionals are caught up in the H1-B-Green Card gridlock, but the immigration bill currently being debated in Congress will exacerbate their agony instead of resolving the matter, activists
for the skilled immigrants lobby say.
Despite the support of US high-tech companies such as Microsoft and Cisco, and business-industry lobbying groups, the ongoing debate centers mainly on the 12 million mostly illegal immigrants, who, under the new proposals being mooted, will jump ahead of high-skilled Indians and qualify to become US citizens.
"What's being debated here is a pro-illegal worker, anti-skilled professional bill," says Aman Kapoor, co-founder of the advocacy group Immigration Voice(www.immigrationvoice.com)
According to Kapoor and others, some of the new rules being considered will be heartbreaking for skilled Indian professionals. Not only is there a proposal to reduce skilled worker Green Cards from 140,000 to 90,000, there is also a move that would require H1B holders to renew their visas on an annual basis.
A new merit-based points system is also loaded against skilled professionals, they say. For instance, economic contribution by the undocumented is recognized by awarding points for property ownership but not for people working legally.
Even accounting for proposed hike in skilled worker Green Card allocation to individual countries from 7 per cent to ten per cent of the total quota, it will take 45 years to clear the backlog from India at the rate of around 10,000 Green Cards a year, claims Kapoor. "What this country is saying is that it prefers cherry pickers to high skilled work force, not that I have anything against cherry pickers," he said.
Vinod Agarwal's immigration saga is a typical narrative that describes the tortured lives of the nearly half million young Indians mired in the great wrangle currently roiling the United States.
Vinod came to the 'States for his masters' degree in 1997 on an F-1 student visa and changed to an H1-B visa when he was hired by a U.S tech company in 2000. In 2001, his employer started the process to help him secure a permanent resident visa, or Green Card, the first step towards eventual US citizenship.
Thanks to a gridlock arising from complicated rules and a huge backlog, this process, now five years old, could take another two to three years. Among the big hurdles: a yearly limit of 140,000 on employment-based Green Cards for skilled workers.
To further stymie things, no more than seven per cent of Green Cards � less than 10,000 -- are allowed to be allocated to immigrants (including their spouses and children) from any one country. The per-country limitation was meant to avoid monopolization by any one country, but it puts a crimp on countries such as India, China and Russia, which send far more high skilled workers to the US than others.
Because of this mess, Vinod has had to put a hold on some of the most important decisions in his life � like marriage, or making investment commitments. And because his Green Card process is tied to his employer, he cannot make career moves and has to put a lid on his entrepreneurial ambitions and options.
So, a decade after he came to the land of opportunity, Vinod is still a guest, although the contribution of his ilk to the American economy is a matter of record.
According to a recent study, 24% of all the US patents filed from the US are by foreign nationals on temporary visas. Nearly a quarter of tech companies in Silicon Valley are started by skilled professionals who came to the US on H1-B visas.
If Vinod and his type thought the new immigration bill now being debated in the US Congress could address their plight, the were mistaken. The bill, say Immigration Voice activists, has been hijacked by advocates for restricting high-skilled immigrants and those promoting vote bank politics.
"Illegal immigrants are sucking all the air in the room," adds Vikas Chowdhury, a tech professional also caught in the Green Card imbroglio. "The message from the US Senate to legal, skill based immigrants is, 'so long suckers!"
Great immigration debate has Indians steamed up
24 May, 2007 l 2200 hrs ISTlCHIDANAND RAJGHATTA/TIMES NEWS NETWORK
WASHINGTON: The fate of tens of thousands of high-skilled Indian professionals waiting to be permanent US residents is being sidelined in an immigration debate that is heavily tilted in favor of illegal workers, according to advocates of high-tech immigration and Indian activists.
Close to 450,000 Indian professionals are caught up in the H1-B-Green Card gridlock, but the immigration bill currently being debated in Congress will exacerbate their agony instead of resolving the matter, activists
for the skilled immigrants lobby say.
Despite the support of US high-tech companies such as Microsoft and Cisco, and business-industry lobbying groups, the ongoing debate centers mainly on the 12 million mostly illegal immigrants, who, under the new proposals being mooted, will jump ahead of high-skilled Indians and qualify to become US citizens.
"What's being debated here is a pro-illegal worker, anti-skilled professional bill," says Aman Kapoor, co-founder of the advocacy group Immigration Voice(www.immigrationvoice.com)
According to Kapoor and others, some of the new rules being considered will be heartbreaking for skilled Indian professionals. Not only is there a proposal to reduce skilled worker Green Cards from 140,000 to 90,000, there is also a move that would require H1B holders to renew their visas on an annual basis.
A new merit-based points system is also loaded against skilled professionals, they say. For instance, economic contribution by the undocumented is recognized by awarding points for property ownership but not for people working legally.
Even accounting for proposed hike in skilled worker Green Card allocation to individual countries from 7 per cent to ten per cent of the total quota, it will take 45 years to clear the backlog from India at the rate of around 10,000 Green Cards a year, claims Kapoor. "What this country is saying is that it prefers cherry pickers to high skilled work force, not that I have anything against cherry pickers," he said.
Vinod Agarwal's immigration saga is a typical narrative that describes the tortured lives of the nearly half million young Indians mired in the great wrangle currently roiling the United States.
Vinod came to the 'States for his masters' degree in 1997 on an F-1 student visa and changed to an H1-B visa when he was hired by a U.S tech company in 2000. In 2001, his employer started the process to help him secure a permanent resident visa, or Green Card, the first step towards eventual US citizenship.
Thanks to a gridlock arising from complicated rules and a huge backlog, this process, now five years old, could take another two to three years. Among the big hurdles: a yearly limit of 140,000 on employment-based Green Cards for skilled workers.
To further stymie things, no more than seven per cent of Green Cards � less than 10,000 -- are allowed to be allocated to immigrants (including their spouses and children) from any one country. The per-country limitation was meant to avoid monopolization by any one country, but it puts a crimp on countries such as India, China and Russia, which send far more high skilled workers to the US than others.
Because of this mess, Vinod has had to put a hold on some of the most important decisions in his life � like marriage, or making investment commitments. And because his Green Card process is tied to his employer, he cannot make career moves and has to put a lid on his entrepreneurial ambitions and options.
So, a decade after he came to the land of opportunity, Vinod is still a guest, although the contribution of his ilk to the American economy is a matter of record.
According to a recent study, 24% of all the US patents filed from the US are by foreign nationals on temporary visas. Nearly a quarter of tech companies in Silicon Valley are started by skilled professionals who came to the US on H1-B visas.
If Vinod and his type thought the new immigration bill now being debated in the US Congress could address their plight, the were mistaken. The bill, say Immigration Voice activists, has been hijacked by advocates for restricting high-skilled immigrants and those promoting vote bank politics.
"Illegal immigrants are sucking all the air in the room," adds Vikas Chowdhury, a tech professional also caught in the Green Card imbroglio. "The message from the US Senate to legal, skill based immigrants is, 'so long suckers!"
more...
acecupid
06-09 12:30 PM
Our I-485 is pending and we have EAD/AP to enter the US back. We are planning to travel to INDIA end of this year and we can use our AP to return. We also have our H1B/H4 visa approval until 10/2010. The question is:
1. Should we stamp our passport with H1B/H4 visas? If yes, does anyone has information about how to take an appointment from US for Mumbai embassy?
2. Is it recommanded to have passport stamped with H1B/H4 even if we have Advance Parole?
Please help. Thanks a lot.
1. If you are currently in H1 status then my personal opinion is to continue to stay on H1 rather than become a parolee with AP entry. Ofcourse you can avoid a lot of hassles and mental tension with AP, however its good to be on H1 and keep AP as backup for re-entry.
If God forbid your I-485 gets denied for some reason, then you will still be in status based on H1. If you are a parolee at the time of denial, then you go out of status right away. Ofcourse you can file MTR and still get back in status if things work out. But having H1 is the cleanest way to maintain valid status.
You have to take the appointment from VFS website for the mumbai consulate. Keep in mind mumbai consulate process is slightly different compared to the other consulates in India. You have to send the application forms and required documentation 3 days prior to the interview date. You can get more info here : https://www.vfs-usa.co.in/Home.aspx
2.Since you already have AP, there is no harm in getting H1B stamped. If it is denied for some reason you can always come back on AP. Make sure you carry a copy of your I-485 receipt for the interview.
1. Should we stamp our passport with H1B/H4 visas? If yes, does anyone has information about how to take an appointment from US for Mumbai embassy?
2. Is it recommanded to have passport stamped with H1B/H4 even if we have Advance Parole?
Please help. Thanks a lot.
1. If you are currently in H1 status then my personal opinion is to continue to stay on H1 rather than become a parolee with AP entry. Ofcourse you can avoid a lot of hassles and mental tension with AP, however its good to be on H1 and keep AP as backup for re-entry.
If God forbid your I-485 gets denied for some reason, then you will still be in status based on H1. If you are a parolee at the time of denial, then you go out of status right away. Ofcourse you can file MTR and still get back in status if things work out. But having H1 is the cleanest way to maintain valid status.
You have to take the appointment from VFS website for the mumbai consulate. Keep in mind mumbai consulate process is slightly different compared to the other consulates in India. You have to send the application forms and required documentation 3 days prior to the interview date. You can get more info here : https://www.vfs-usa.co.in/Home.aspx
2.Since you already have AP, there is no harm in getting H1B stamped. If it is denied for some reason you can always come back on AP. Make sure you carry a copy of your I-485 receipt for the interview.
2010 Friends (TV Show)
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...
icecreamy
08-30 03:02 PM
oops ~ typo :P
Thanks!
I dont think you mean LUD on 485 correctly.
It has to be after ND.
Thanks!
I dont think you mean LUD on 485 correctly.
It has to be after ND.
hair friends tv show - 131806
roseball
03-29 03:34 PM
Read the Murthy article, looks like DOL is stepping up PERM approvals for non-audited cases (now let's just pray we who are waiting for PERM don't get audited!)
Best of luck to all!
MurthyDotCom : Stepped-Up PERM / LC Processing (http://murthy.com/news/n_stepup.html)
As per my attorney, number of PERM applications filed in 2nd half of 2009 is very low (He has some good contacts at Atlanta DOL). He was expecting all 2009 non-audited cases to be processed in a couple of months....Not getting audited is the key in PERM process. My PERM will be finally filed this week, and I am hoping its not going be audited (MS + 6 yrs or BS + 8 yrs exp, 4G Mobile Communications R&D) though my attorney feels it will be....Keeping my fingers crossed...A successful EB3 to Eb2 conversion seems to be the only hope...
Best of luck to all!
MurthyDotCom : Stepped-Up PERM / LC Processing (http://murthy.com/news/n_stepup.html)
As per my attorney, number of PERM applications filed in 2nd half of 2009 is very low (He has some good contacts at Atlanta DOL). He was expecting all 2009 non-audited cases to be processed in a couple of months....Not getting audited is the key in PERM process. My PERM will be finally filed this week, and I am hoping its not going be audited (MS + 6 yrs or BS + 8 yrs exp, 4G Mobile Communications R&D) though my attorney feels it will be....Keeping my fingers crossed...A successful EB3 to Eb2 conversion seems to be the only hope...
more...
amit_sp
07-16 09:29 AM
Hello: Here's the original article.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118455917060167397-lMyQjAxMDE3ODE0NjUxNTY5Wj.html
see Greg Siskind's blog :
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
An alert reader sent me the following this morning. Miriam Jordan of the WSJ is reporting
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
This would be hugely disappointing news if true and, according to a source, this was NOT the deal on the table over the weekend. It also will fail to address the three crises facing USCIS:
- fighting multiple lawsuits including at least two class action matters
- staving off congressional hearings and the release of embarrassing documents
- answering press inquiries over why USCIS skipped security clearances during a time when the US is under threat of a major terrorist attack
One would hope that common sense would outweigh USCIS' anti-immigrant instincts. Like an addict that's out of control, it's time for an intervention.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118455917060167397-lMyQjAxMDE3ODE0NjUxNTY5Wj.html
see Greg Siskind's blog :
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/
An alert reader sent me the following this morning. Miriam Jordan of the WSJ is reporting
Looking to resolve a messy immigration tangle, the U.S. government is close to announcing that it will accept at least some applications for work-based green cards that were filed by thousands of skilled workers in early July at the government's invitation and then abruptly rejected.
This would be hugely disappointing news if true and, according to a source, this was NOT the deal on the table over the weekend. It also will fail to address the three crises facing USCIS:
- fighting multiple lawsuits including at least two class action matters
- staving off congressional hearings and the release of embarrassing documents
- answering press inquiries over why USCIS skipped security clearances during a time when the US is under threat of a major terrorist attack
One would hope that common sense would outweigh USCIS' anti-immigrant instincts. Like an addict that's out of control, it's time for an intervention.
hot Friends (TV Show)
mihird
09-26 04:29 PM
Ur missing the point.
The number after the letter, which stands for the classification category is pretty much irrelevant for the purpose of determining the maximum period of stay. You might notice that in many publications USCIS addresses visitors to the US as being in B, H or L status, omitting the #.
As long as your wife maintains her H4 status properly (providing you maintain your H1 status) and as long as she possess necessary travel documents she is free to enter and exit the country.
As far as I understand she will not have any legal problem obtaining an H1 visa after staying out of the country for a year, as long as the visa # is available, she has a job offer etc.
But I do not believe that her H status clock will reset if she leaves the country for a year, then enter in H4 status (which is still a derivative and tied to your principal H status clock). Therefore she will not be able to change her status to that of H1.
Again, it's a pretty complicated matter and you might want to consult an experienced lawyer.
Once you leave the US for 366 days, your H clock is reset. Now, you enter back on a H4, your H clock starts ticking down again..you should be able to do the H4->H1 change of status (once a H visa # is available) and exit and re-enter on a H1 visa and get new time on your H1 of [6 years - minus the time spent on H4]. Again, I am not an attorney, I am just saying this from what seems logical to me..
The number after the letter, which stands for the classification category is pretty much irrelevant for the purpose of determining the maximum period of stay. You might notice that in many publications USCIS addresses visitors to the US as being in B, H or L status, omitting the #.
As long as your wife maintains her H4 status properly (providing you maintain your H1 status) and as long as she possess necessary travel documents she is free to enter and exit the country.
As far as I understand she will not have any legal problem obtaining an H1 visa after staying out of the country for a year, as long as the visa # is available, she has a job offer etc.
But I do not believe that her H status clock will reset if she leaves the country for a year, then enter in H4 status (which is still a derivative and tied to your principal H status clock). Therefore she will not be able to change her status to that of H1.
Again, it's a pretty complicated matter and you might want to consult an experienced lawyer.
Once you leave the US for 366 days, your H clock is reset. Now, you enter back on a H4, your H clock starts ticking down again..you should be able to do the H4->H1 change of status (once a H visa # is available) and exit and re-enter on a H1 visa and get new time on your H1 of [6 years - minus the time spent on H4]. Again, I am not an attorney, I am just saying this from what seems logical to me..
more...
house friends tv series. Friends
Bhaskar_80
05-21 04:45 PM
Hi,
Yes. PERM is taking close to 7 months if not stuck in Audit. My case was filed on 10/12/2009.
My employer saw that the status of my case changed to Certified in the following website
yesterday. So approximately it is taking b/w 7 to 8 months which is good news.
http://www.plc.doleta.gov/splash.cfm
Can anybody let me know, how long will it take to get the approval notice in hand.
Thanks and Regards
Yes. PERM is taking close to 7 months if not stuck in Audit. My case was filed on 10/12/2009.
My employer saw that the status of my case changed to Certified in the following website
yesterday. So approximately it is taking b/w 7 to 8 months which is good news.
http://www.plc.doleta.gov/splash.cfm
Can anybody let me know, how long will it take to get the approval notice in hand.
Thanks and Regards
tattoo 1970#39;s Spiderman Tv Show
vrbest
01-21 09:04 PM
Thanks "LostInGCProcess". This clarifies my doubt..Ksrk: One of my friend had asked his lawyer and they said we can be on H1B even if we used AP..
Yes, you get I-94 with 1 year and states AOS Pending...Basically, means, you are allowed to stay till the outcome of your I-485.
Yes, as long as you are working for the same employer. I did the same, I am on H1 right now, but used my AP last year to travel to India.
Yes, you get I-94 with 1 year and states AOS Pending...Basically, means, you are allowed to stay till the outcome of your I-485.
Yes, as long as you are working for the same employer. I did the same, I am on H1 right now, but used my AP last year to travel to India.
more...
pictures Friends (TV Show)
sushilup
08-22 10:37 AM
Hello Guys,
I refresh this site lot of time and I know many more do the same. Probably it brings u closer to GC:)
I know many people put money in stocks...we might start sharing our views and make some money with GC...that will wooooooooooooooooooow:D
What other people think?
I refresh this site lot of time and I know many more do the same. Probably it brings u closer to GC:)
I know many people put money in stocks...we might start sharing our views and make some money with GC...that will wooooooooooooooooooow:D
What other people think?
dresses Archie and Friends - andrews,
mdmd10
09-16 01:35 PM
Did you see any LUD prior to this email?
No LUDs. Just got our approvals on the 14th around 5:30 PM. I did have a pretty benign RFE for EVL to which we replied on Aug 12th and there were subsequent Soft LUDs for 6 consecutive days until 8/19.
I'm guessing its been around a month since we responded to my RFE and since my case was under review, they may have picked it eventually.
No LUDs. Just got our approvals on the 14th around 5:30 PM. I did have a pretty benign RFE for EVL to which we replied on Aug 12th and there were subsequent Soft LUDs for 6 consecutive days until 8/19.
I'm guessing its been around a month since we responded to my RFE and since my case was under review, they may have picked it eventually.
more...
makeup Friends - Season 8 submitted
pappu
05-11 01:24 PM
they seem to favor unskilled workers category and talk about only 5 thousand Gcs available.
girlfriend friends tv show wallpaper.
jsporn
03-26 04:01 PM
The reason a case would be transferred to the National Benefits Center would be to schedule an interview at a local office.
hairstyles Confirmed for show three
LC2002
01-02 12:16 PM
Guys,
I am seeing in CRIS, Soft LUD's on old H1B extentions dated 12/30/07 (2006,2007) while none recent one on 140/485!
Any ideas to help me understand. My 140/485 were filed in July 2007 concurrently. FP/EAD/AP were done.
I am seeing in CRIS, Soft LUD's on old H1B extentions dated 12/30/07 (2006,2007) while none recent one on 140/485!
Any ideas to help me understand. My 140/485 were filed in July 2007 concurrently. FP/EAD/AP were done.
gotgc?
08-06 10:45 AM
I have a EB2 - I140 (PERM) pending at Texas from 06/2006 and another EB3-I140 (RIR) pending from 06/2007. When my lawyer filed the EB2-I140, he filed it with a copy of labor from DOL (not original hard copy). He says he did not know it would cause such a delay. My EB3-I140 however was filed on labor approved from the Dallas BEC. It was filed with the original copy of labor. Are there any people like me, who have endured a long wait because they did not have the original labor ? Please post your experiences here .......
I filed my EB3 LC Substitution I-140 with the copy of the labor. It has been pending since June 2006.
I filed my EB3 LC Substitution I-140 with the copy of the labor. It has been pending since June 2006.
Munshi75
08-08 06:47 PM
include options for all the people in the EB-3. Are you trying to discrimiate recent applicants? I am one of them with 2006 PD.
No comments:
Post a Comment