amitjoey
05-28 12:27 PM
Greatly apprecite if anyone can give their inputs...
I have PD with dec 2006 and 140 approved. Filed 485 in July 2007. For october 2008 I will be done with 4 years of H1b. I am single and I may not get married untill later 2009 due to some family responsibalities. I am kind of concered about 485 getting approval by then which might jeoperdise my spouse visa later. Based on the present processing speed, mine might take minmum 2 years. But bit concerend what if USCICS make a mistake in processing 485 in terms of picking 485 from a later date and approving it?
So my query is...
1. If I now withdraw my 485 and later change company. SHould I again get a new labor and i140 approved with new company to file for 485.( Here I understand I can port my PD.).
Any inputs will be greatly apprecited....
PD With DEC 2006: IF you are from a retrogressed country, unless there is any overhaul in the precent process, or new visas added by way of new laws, you are looking at atleast 3 years of wait. Why would you want to withdraw it right now, wait for another 2-1/2 years. If suddenly you notice the dates jumping, then you can decide to withdraw.
In the meantime, get 3 years extension on your H1, based on approved I140.
Check w/lawyer.
I have PD with dec 2006 and 140 approved. Filed 485 in July 2007. For october 2008 I will be done with 4 years of H1b. I am single and I may not get married untill later 2009 due to some family responsibalities. I am kind of concered about 485 getting approval by then which might jeoperdise my spouse visa later. Based on the present processing speed, mine might take minmum 2 years. But bit concerend what if USCICS make a mistake in processing 485 in terms of picking 485 from a later date and approving it?
So my query is...
1. If I now withdraw my 485 and later change company. SHould I again get a new labor and i140 approved with new company to file for 485.( Here I understand I can port my PD.).
Any inputs will be greatly apprecited....
PD With DEC 2006: IF you are from a retrogressed country, unless there is any overhaul in the precent process, or new visas added by way of new laws, you are looking at atleast 3 years of wait. Why would you want to withdraw it right now, wait for another 2-1/2 years. If suddenly you notice the dates jumping, then you can decide to withdraw.
In the meantime, get 3 years extension on your H1, based on approved I140.
Check w/lawyer.
quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters. cheating
learning01
05-11 01:21 PM
I am trying but I am getting a busy tone.
quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters.
justareader
09-14 02:49 PM
Count me in !
quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters. Quotes For Cheaters. quotes; Quotes For Cheaters. quotes
coolmanasip
07-19 09:51 AM
GURUs cna u reply when you get a chance!
more...
quotes for cheaters. Quotes like cheaters never
vjkypally
01-26 05:01 PM
bump
quotes for cheaters. quotes about cheaters
dixie
09-17 11:29 AM
What you say is true, but then we do not represent all legal immigrants either .. we are specifically focussed on employment-based permanent residence applicants. We do not want to associate ourselves with family immigration or H1-B visas any more than illegal immigration. Unfortunately, even when ordinary americans think of legal immigration, it is these varieties that spring to the mind. Given the difficulty we already have in getting adequate coverage, changing names mid-stream might cause confusion.
I am not starting this thread to start get any offensive resposnes. I feel that we need to distinguish ourselves from the illegal people and make the American public aware of our issue. How many will understand our current situation by hearing our name? I understand that name change is not a simple process for an org and might involve some paperwork. The website redirection shouldnt be a big deal though. This is not the need of the hour as the core group might be busy working with QGA.
No offence intended, no flames expected :)
I am not starting this thread to start get any offensive resposnes. I feel that we need to distinguish ourselves from the illegal people and make the American public aware of our issue. How many will understand our current situation by hearing our name? I understand that name change is not a simple process for an org and might involve some paperwork. The website redirection shouldnt be a big deal though. This is not the need of the hour as the core group might be busy working with QGA.
No offence intended, no flames expected :)
more...
quotes for cheaters. Cheater Quotes
jeffrey930
10-02 01:30 AM
found out today my EAD status finally changed to card production i'm so happy...i hope everyone get theres EAD soon, i know the wait is a pain in the @##... How many days you guys think before i get my card on hand? thanks for any reply..
EB3------NEBRASKA ( LIN-***-*** *****)
RD: I-485,I-765,I-140------July 27,2007
ND: September 4,2007
FP:October 11,2007
AED: Card Production Ordered---- October 1, 2007
EB3------NEBRASKA ( LIN-***-*** *****)
RD: I-485,I-765,I-140------July 27,2007
ND: September 4,2007
FP:October 11,2007
AED: Card Production Ordered---- October 1, 2007
quotes for cheaters. Quotes like cheaters never; quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters.
gcfriend65
12-06 11:07 AM
Does anybody know what date NSC is processing APs for July-August filers?
NSC people have gotten 3 copies. but I think both TSC and CSC people have gotten only 2 copies. There is no need to worry I guess.
NSC people have gotten 3 copies. but I think both TSC and CSC people have gotten only 2 copies. There is no need to worry I guess.
more...
quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters; quotes for cheaters. Quotes For Cheaters. Quotes For Cheaters.
ImmiLosers
09-25 05:22 PM
Dear Guru's
I got rejection notice from TSC for a valid I-485 application stating that "A Visa number is not available at the present time".
However, I have two I-140 approved one in EB3 with 10-Nov-2004 as PD and another I-140 in EB2 category with 10-Aug-2007 as PD.
It is evident that Based on 10-Nov-2004 my PD is current and my application highlighted the same in bright cover sheet and my application still got rejected.
based on notice we filed the same application back and this time CC'd to ombudsman emphasizing the same fact for PD.
Its been a week we respond to rejection notice and haven't got either acceptance or rejection letter. and haven't heard back from ombudsman.
I am optimistic and would wait to get the response but I am worried since only 5 business days left before the dates get retrogressed.
I would like to know what actions do I need to take "while the date is current"; so that I can pursue my case further after 9/30/2008.
Is there anyway I can talk to ombudsman office and get personal attention to my case.
Guru's please help me out with your experience and ideas.
I filed last year with 2 I-140's wherein 1st was current and second was not. They accepted it.
I think you can still ask them even after 09/30. You may want to keep record of your dispatches.
BTW, it (filing with 2 I-140) is not a good idea as you may need to keep reminding them.
I got rejection notice from TSC for a valid I-485 application stating that "A Visa number is not available at the present time".
However, I have two I-140 approved one in EB3 with 10-Nov-2004 as PD and another I-140 in EB2 category with 10-Aug-2007 as PD.
It is evident that Based on 10-Nov-2004 my PD is current and my application highlighted the same in bright cover sheet and my application still got rejected.
based on notice we filed the same application back and this time CC'd to ombudsman emphasizing the same fact for PD.
Its been a week we respond to rejection notice and haven't got either acceptance or rejection letter. and haven't heard back from ombudsman.
I am optimistic and would wait to get the response but I am worried since only 5 business days left before the dates get retrogressed.
I would like to know what actions do I need to take "while the date is current"; so that I can pursue my case further after 9/30/2008.
Is there anyway I can talk to ombudsman office and get personal attention to my case.
Guru's please help me out with your experience and ideas.
I filed last year with 2 I-140's wherein 1st was current and second was not. They accepted it.
I think you can still ask them even after 09/30. You may want to keep record of your dispatches.
BTW, it (filing with 2 I-140) is not a good idea as you may need to keep reminding them.
quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters; quotes for cheaters
bekugc
04-08 06:18 PM
ss1026;
if u register at uscis as a customer, then u can create ur profile and add ur cases to it as a portfolio. once u do that all ur cases will be listed in a tabular column fashion, and one of the columns is 'last updated date'. u cud sort on that column to regularly see if anythings hapening on ur case.
if u register at uscis as a customer, then u can create ur profile and add ur cases to it as a portfolio. once u do that all ur cases will be listed in a tabular column fashion, and one of the columns is 'last updated date'. u cud sort on that column to regularly see if anythings hapening on ur case.
more...
quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters
tnite
08-03 10:28 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/ReceiptingTimes080307.pdf
Per this press note, Nebraska has issued receipts for I-485 upto July 11 and Texas 26th June....
maybe they meant 07/1/2007
Per this press note, Nebraska has issued receipts for I-485 upto July 11 and Texas 26th June....
maybe they meant 07/1/2007
quotes for cheaters. quotes about cheating
pappu
05-24 01:58 PM
Only last week I saw an article that said something to the effect that " Want US GC, get Masters". At that time, we all laughed at how these reports are compiled and brushed them off as tabloids.
Unfortunately , this time IV has got the right message and the publicity, but how will an average reader decide which article is saying the truth. People will understand/interpret the news the way their minds wants it to be , regardless of what the absolute truth is.
Regardless , a step in the positive direction for us
IV thanks its member- English_august for getting us this interview.
Yes this time TOI got it right. IV thanks TOI for this article too.
Unfortunately , this time IV has got the right message and the publicity, but how will an average reader decide which article is saying the truth. People will understand/interpret the news the way their minds wants it to be , regardless of what the absolute truth is.
Regardless , a step in the positive direction for us
IV thanks its member- English_august for getting us this interview.
Yes this time TOI got it right. IV thanks TOI for this article too.
more...
quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters
ashshef
09-11 06:40 PM
There has been a understanding that the number of EB cases (EB2+EB3) with PD of 2005 is very less compared to previous years (close to 8000 i believe). If thats the case and assume 2004 cases are cleared why didnt the VB make more advance movements?
I could be off by a few hundred, but I believe the per country quota caps EB2-I to about 2600. Keeping in mind that the least number of cases was likely in the period of Apr-Aug, due to the new process and uncertainity around Perm, that would still mean a lot of cases in the first quarter and last quarter of 2005. That would still mean slow progress through the first quarter of 2005 before we see significant movement.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is no movement or negative movement in the next couple of months, before they hit the next quarter. I don't anticipate them getting too far before they are ready for the spillover at the end of FY2010.
I know of atleast 3 big companies which were not filing Perm till atleast Sep 2005. But they had a lot of filings in the last 2 weeks of March.
I could be off by a few hundred, but I believe the per country quota caps EB2-I to about 2600. Keeping in mind that the least number of cases was likely in the period of Apr-Aug, due to the new process and uncertainity around Perm, that would still mean a lot of cases in the first quarter and last quarter of 2005. That would still mean slow progress through the first quarter of 2005 before we see significant movement.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is no movement or negative movement in the next couple of months, before they hit the next quarter. I don't anticipate them getting too far before they are ready for the spillover at the end of FY2010.
I know of atleast 3 big companies which were not filing Perm till atleast Sep 2005. But they had a lot of filings in the last 2 weeks of March.
quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters
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...
quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters. Love Quotes Scarf Sale~
p_aluri
04-01 05:38 PM
I am sorry to hear about your situation.
Your attorney may be completly wrong about the labor substitution. The USCIS has passed new rule, The labor will be voided once its passed 180days after approval. So the approved labors from your company has no value.
Did you try utilizing AC21 as your 140 approved and the 180days crossed?
Again I am not a lawyer, please talk to experienced attorneys.
Thank you,
Aluri
Hello folks,
i need some expert opinion here. These are my primary details.
COMPANY A:
1. Perm Labor - Nov 2006. (EB2)
2. I-140 approved - Nov 2007
3. I-485 filed - July 2007.
4 EAD - oct 2007
5 FP - Nov 2007
6 AP - Oct 2007
H1-B extension denied in dec 2007 due to variety of company A issues.
Invoked AC21 yesterday with company B.
COMPANY B: Bought substitution labor of Feb 2004 EB3.
I-140 filed : NSC : paper based filing no documents has been sent waiting for RFE on July 13 2007.
But my labor substitute on 140 has been used for somebody else by mistake and now company B says they have few other labors to substitute and they say we'll respond to the query saying that the original one has been used and please consider the second one. Attorney has made this mistake since many labors were filed at that time and the labor that they have used for me has been approved . Do you guys whatever the attorney is suggesting is going to work? Please let me know i haven't got an RFE yet..
Your attorney may be completly wrong about the labor substitution. The USCIS has passed new rule, The labor will be voided once its passed 180days after approval. So the approved labors from your company has no value.
Did you try utilizing AC21 as your 140 approved and the 180days crossed?
Again I am not a lawyer, please talk to experienced attorneys.
Thank you,
Aluri
Hello folks,
i need some expert opinion here. These are my primary details.
COMPANY A:
1. Perm Labor - Nov 2006. (EB2)
2. I-140 approved - Nov 2007
3. I-485 filed - July 2007.
4 EAD - oct 2007
5 FP - Nov 2007
6 AP - Oct 2007
H1-B extension denied in dec 2007 due to variety of company A issues.
Invoked AC21 yesterday with company B.
COMPANY B: Bought substitution labor of Feb 2004 EB3.
I-140 filed : NSC : paper based filing no documents has been sent waiting for RFE on July 13 2007.
But my labor substitute on 140 has been used for somebody else by mistake and now company B says they have few other labors to substitute and they say we'll respond to the query saying that the original one has been used and please consider the second one. Attorney has made this mistake since many labors were filed at that time and the labor that they have used for me has been approved . Do you guys whatever the attorney is suggesting is going to work? Please let me know i haven't got an RFE yet..
quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters. catch the
h4hopeful
05-30 06:51 PM
the reason she was denied is because she is young
SHe is young and already has a family of her own? Are you sure that was the reason for denial? How many members besides her and her husband did you try to sponsor?
SHe is young and already has a family of her own? Are you sure that was the reason for denial? How many members besides her and her husband did you try to sponsor?
more...
quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters.
milind70
07-25 12:43 PM
Thanks for the responses.
I have the affidavits and the birth certificate with me. The problem is with the misspelled names on those when compared to my passport.
Get Affidavits in which u will specify the document(i.e Birth certificate ) has the parents names misspelt and the correct spelling (i.e as in passport) and plus other details you full name ,DOB and place of birth etc etc.Affidavits are required in case the information on the Birth Certificate is incomplete i.e no name or when there is incorrect information i.e place of birth missplet ,parents name not in expanded format etc etc.
I have the affidavits and the birth certificate with me. The problem is with the misspelled names on those when compared to my passport.
Get Affidavits in which u will specify the document(i.e Birth certificate ) has the parents names misspelt and the correct spelling (i.e as in passport) and plus other details you full name ,DOB and place of birth etc etc.Affidavits are required in case the information on the Birth Certificate is incomplete i.e no name or when there is incorrect information i.e place of birth missplet ,parents name not in expanded format etc etc.
quotes for cheaters. Men Cheating with Women
smuggymba
03-30 08:30 PM
Finally my PERM was filed today. I'm just praying everything gets approved smoothly.:D
The attorney said they are processing cases as of aug 2009. Fingers crossed.
The attorney said they are processing cases as of aug 2009. Fingers crossed.
quotes for cheaters. quotes for cheaters
ivjobs
11-10 10:02 AM
Couple of polls have been started in the entrepreneurship group. Please follow the below link to participate
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ivstartup/polls
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/ivstartup/polls
BPforGC
05-21 04:54 PM
July 2009
July 2010
July 2011
July 2012...or
By the way things are moving backwards, We will be awarded GC posthumously in a Rose Garden Ceremony by the President (who will be my son since he was born here and eligible to be come President. He will be contesting elections in 2060 under 'American Nava Nirman Sena' Ticket).
July 2010
July 2011
July 2012...or
By the way things are moving backwards, We will be awarded GC posthumously in a Rose Garden Ceremony by the President (who will be my son since he was born here and eligible to be come President. He will be contesting elections in 2060 under 'American Nava Nirman Sena' Ticket).
WeShallOvercome
07-23 04:11 PM
No responses :(
Can someone tell exactly how an FP notice looks?
Can someone tell exactly how an FP notice looks?
No comments:
Post a Comment