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.
wallpaper Points him long advice, quotes
sodh
07-27 05:03 PM
And one more thing notarize the request, its not neccesary,but its better to be safe.
seekerofpeace
10-05 11:05 PM
that was hilarious GCN007...BTW my wife got approved to finally....
Years ago or should I say ages ago not even in the US of A but at Heathrow at the American Airlines counter (that time I was a student for MS) the lady was going thru my I-20 and was asking for additional documents et al...so I had this bunch of documents in my folder...and her eyes landed on my degree certificate...she asked me you have a degree from IIT and you couldn't get a job still ? that's why you are going for your MS....i was like well I wanted to do research....why not in India? I was like this is not even USA and this is my 2nd visit to USA (after the Christmas break in the 2nd year)....why are they asking so many questions and this is pre-9/11.....
I was like why is she harassing me....Do you have intentions of staying back in the USA after you finish your MS....I said no I plan to do my PhD in the UK...She gave me a ugly look and stamped my passport and let me go....
SoP
Years ago or should I say ages ago not even in the US of A but at Heathrow at the American Airlines counter (that time I was a student for MS) the lady was going thru my I-20 and was asking for additional documents et al...so I had this bunch of documents in my folder...and her eyes landed on my degree certificate...she asked me you have a degree from IIT and you couldn't get a job still ? that's why you are going for your MS....i was like well I wanted to do research....why not in India? I was like this is not even USA and this is my 2nd visit to USA (after the Christmas break in the 2nd year)....why are they asking so many questions and this is pre-9/11.....
I was like why is she harassing me....Do you have intentions of staying back in the USA after you finish your MS....I said no I plan to do my PhD in the UK...She gave me a ugly look and stamped my passport and let me go....
SoP
2011 him home Long-distance
GIDOC
07-14 06:24 PM
I think you should go ahead and apply as your lawyer is suggesting. You do not have anything to lose with this.
more...
neerajkandhari
06-04 10:22 AM
You really need to ask that question of a tax or employment law expert. It's not an immigration issue so it's not my area of expertise.
My I 140 was approved in Aug 2007
I have a 485 pending
Do i need to be in working for all the years till i get a green card
I will be able to provide a job offer letter in the same position in which my green card was sponsered with same or higher salary
Will it be enough to get my 485 approved ?
Your Advice will be appreciated
My I 140 was approved in Aug 2007
I have a 485 pending
Do i need to be in working for all the years till i get a green card
I will be able to provide a job offer letter in the same position in which my green card was sponsered with same or higher salary
Will it be enough to get my 485 approved ?
Your Advice will be appreciated
mdcowboy
09-15 02:41 PM
:)
I know its too early..but 5 years or so when you become a Citizen, I may still be on H1-B, please exercise your right to vote and choose your constituents wisely to those who support Legal immigration!
I know its too early..but 5 years or so when you become a Citizen, I may still be on H1-B, please exercise your right to vote and choose your constituents wisely to those who support Legal immigration!
more...
dilusa1
07-18 08:43 PM
Thanks for great services..
My situation is as under : " My case is in removal proceedings for violating H1b status for 3 months due to laid off situation, i am working on H1b now and my labor is approved and I-140 is pending, now my priority date is become current for I-485 filing", now who will adjudicate my case, INS or EOIR court, where will i file my I-485.
will court close my removal proceedings based on PD current..
i will really really apprecate your help.
My situation is as under : " My case is in removal proceedings for violating H1b status for 3 months due to laid off situation, i am working on H1b now and my labor is approved and I-140 is pending, now my priority date is become current for I-485 filing", now who will adjudicate my case, INS or EOIR court, where will i file my I-485.
will court close my removal proceedings based on PD current..
i will really really apprecate your help.
2010 love quotes for her long
invincibleasian
02-05 02:58 PM
I know the residency application process. I needed help in finding out any hospitals or institutions offering the observership programs.
Thanks
Contact any one of the institutions they should be able to guide you. Talk to them over the phone or take an appointment and visit them.
Thanks
Contact any one of the institutions they should be able to guide you. Talk to them over the phone or take an appointment and visit them.
more...
kumarc123
07-16 03:02 PM
USCIS decided a date Jun 1, 2006 to be current for EB2, so that Visa Numbers are not lost this year. This they decided on the basis of numbers of applications they were able to process by Jul 8, 2008. We all know that I485 Processing Date for NSC was Jul 28, 2007 and TSC was July 17, 2007. These dates were posted on Jun 15 and by July 8, might have moved by a day or two.
Last year USCIS announced (I remember it was last quarter) that for processing all the files received will take around 18 months. We have just 6-9 months gone.
Jul - Sep, the Priority date should not change, because USCIS has to approve all the processed application, they think approvable.
In Oct, also it may remain same, but after that, it will not be able to sustain demand and face retrogression. Nov 2008 to Jun 2009 there may be seesaw of Priority Date +/-1 years of 2005.
Jul-Aug 2009 USCIS may come across similar situation as this year - but in this case all applications of July 2007 processed - I think that time PD will be some date in 2005.
Right now Processing date might be frozen of 2-3 months, because USCIS may put entire energy in approving EB2 processed cases.
Close your stupid post
First you whine and complain of why dates didn't move, now you are focusing on when dates will retrogress?
What is wrong with you all, if EB2 gets relieved from retrogress then next in line is EB3, First you all focus on reasons behind backlog and retrogression, come out with crazy analysis and now some idiots are putting on posts like
dates may retrogress, all these dates have been possible because of the efforts of all IV members. Nobody wants to hear negative news now.
Some other members with an idiotic ideology have similar posts
Eb2 bad luck
EB2 retrogress
Grow up guys, everyone worked hard to see some results, as per now don't break everyone's spirit by posting all these stupid forms. Think positive and positive will happen.
Last year USCIS announced (I remember it was last quarter) that for processing all the files received will take around 18 months. We have just 6-9 months gone.
Jul - Sep, the Priority date should not change, because USCIS has to approve all the processed application, they think approvable.
In Oct, also it may remain same, but after that, it will not be able to sustain demand and face retrogression. Nov 2008 to Jun 2009 there may be seesaw of Priority Date +/-1 years of 2005.
Jul-Aug 2009 USCIS may come across similar situation as this year - but in this case all applications of July 2007 processed - I think that time PD will be some date in 2005.
Right now Processing date might be frozen of 2-3 months, because USCIS may put entire energy in approving EB2 processed cases.
Close your stupid post
First you whine and complain of why dates didn't move, now you are focusing on when dates will retrogress?
What is wrong with you all, if EB2 gets relieved from retrogress then next in line is EB3, First you all focus on reasons behind backlog and retrogression, come out with crazy analysis and now some idiots are putting on posts like
dates may retrogress, all these dates have been possible because of the efforts of all IV members. Nobody wants to hear negative news now.
Some other members with an idiotic ideology have similar posts
Eb2 bad luck
EB2 retrogress
Grow up guys, everyone worked hard to see some results, as per now don't break everyone's spirit by posting all these stupid forms. Think positive and positive will happen.
hair Love+quotes+for+him+long+
vjkypally
08-19 10:38 AM
That way we can keep people who have got GC's connected to this site.
more...
jack_suv
07-20 10:33 AM
Hi all,
As one reply pointed out,
AC21 portability means you retain the same green card application i.e. labor, i-140 and i-485 after 6 months of filing i-485 and i-140 is approved.
EAD is a way to get a job. Obviously using EAD is easier than filing H1.
So you can use AC21 by using H1 and still retain spouse's H4.
You can also use AC21 by using EAD but at that point your spouse's H4 is gone out of status.
As one reply pointed out,
AC21 portability means you retain the same green card application i.e. labor, i-140 and i-485 after 6 months of filing i-485 and i-140 is approved.
EAD is a way to get a job. Obviously using EAD is easier than filing H1.
So you can use AC21 by using H1 and still retain spouse's H4.
You can also use AC21 by using EAD but at that point your spouse's H4 is gone out of status.
hot Love Poems For Him Album
Sakthisagar
05-19 11:02 AM
Look i am not trying to say "mera bharat Mahan". All i am saying is tell me why should the Indian PM work to get us the Green Card. If you feel the Indian PM is incompetent, that is a different issue. Even if there was a competent PM, why should he/she work to get our Green Card?
Mexico is a bordering country and has a different kind of trade and agreeements. It is not the same for other countries like India and China.
Tell me why not Indian PM can't indicate to The US President on immigration? what is wrong in that logically, only for dollars and election fund they need NRIs how many Indians who are in US contribute to the Indian economy. Tell me what is wrong in asking ?
Mexico might be bordering country but India aslo ahve trade agreements with US, is PM afrain of US authorities? or there is no order for the all powerful all is wel madame and her son who is good for nothing?
Tail Note: heard from confidential sources when Indian PM visited White house it is said for every question President Obama asks he was on hot line with his master madame in Delhi for answers, he can never say anything without asking her!
Mexico is a bordering country and has a different kind of trade and agreeements. It is not the same for other countries like India and China.
Tell me why not Indian PM can't indicate to The US President on immigration? what is wrong in that logically, only for dollars and election fund they need NRIs how many Indians who are in US contribute to the Indian economy. Tell me what is wrong in asking ?
Mexico might be bordering country but India aslo ahve trade agreements with US, is PM afrain of US authorities? or there is no order for the all powerful all is wel madame and her son who is good for nothing?
Tail Note: heard from confidential sources when Indian PM visited White house it is said for every question President Obama asks he was on hot line with his master madame in Delhi for answers, he can never say anything without asking her!
more...
house want him to.. everywhere.
Desertfox
10-30 10:04 PM
Lawyer? So, You don't believe what was posted on USIS website?
I find it wise to pay my lawyer to find the correct information for me.... be it from USCIS website or from her professional knowledge base. Believe it or not, I trust a qualified professional more than myself when it comes to a subject outside of my expertise...:D
I find it wise to pay my lawyer to find the correct information for me.... be it from USCIS website or from her professional knowledge base. Believe it or not, I trust a qualified professional more than myself when it comes to a subject outside of my expertise...:D
tattoo distance him her love by
jcrajput
06-09 11:03 AM
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. 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.
more...
pictures nudge him
gcventure
04-07 04:32 PM
ggc,
What was the outcome of your interview. Did you get 485 approval. I am in a similar situation. Appreciate your reply.
What was the outcome of your interview. Did you get 485 approval. I am in a similar situation. Appreciate your reply.
dresses love quotes for her long
ski_dude12
07-21 03:22 PM
Guys:
I am applying for my 485 and I was contemplating using the NEW fees vs OLD Fees.
OLD Fees:
I485- $325
Biometric - $70
I765 - $180
I131 -$170
TOTAL - $745
NEW Fees, which includes Biometric, EAD, and AP - $1010.00 when applying all togther with I485.
Check New Fees. (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/FinalUSCISFeeSchedule052907.pdf)
Now my question - Is it TRUE that in the NEW Fees, it allows for an indefinite FREE Renewal of EAD and AP until Green card is received. If this statement is true, then I would prefer using the NEW Fees, since it pays off within 1 year.
If anybody knows this answer, please attach link or direct to the USCIS page.
Thanks
New fee is 1010 (I-485 + FP) + $305 (AP) + $340 (EAD) = $1655
I am applying for my 485 and I was contemplating using the NEW fees vs OLD Fees.
OLD Fees:
I485- $325
Biometric - $70
I765 - $180
I131 -$170
TOTAL - $745
NEW Fees, which includes Biometric, EAD, and AP - $1010.00 when applying all togther with I485.
Check New Fees. (http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/FinalUSCISFeeSchedule052907.pdf)
Now my question - Is it TRUE that in the NEW Fees, it allows for an indefinite FREE Renewal of EAD and AP until Green card is received. If this statement is true, then I would prefer using the NEW Fees, since it pays off within 1 year.
If anybody knows this answer, please attach link or direct to the USCIS page.
Thanks
New fee is 1010 (I-485 + FP) + $305 (AP) + $340 (EAD) = $1655
more...
makeup after a long time it was a
bikram_das_in
05-21 04:40 PM
Doe anybody have any doubt who developed USCIS software?............ Loser's Guild.
girlfriend cute love quotes him
logiclife
06-20 12:06 PM
Fellows,
I had my PERM labour and I-140 approved with priority date Dec 2005 in EB2 category. I changed my job in April and was hoping to get the priority date transferred to with new labour and I-140 from new employer. I have not started the GC process with new employer and am in good terms with old employer. With the priority dates being current for July (and probably for August too), what are the options I have:
1. Filing new labour and pray to get approved before end of August. Then file for I-140 and I-485 concurrently. Do I stand a chance there, with advertisement publishing and other formalities?
2. Can I file my I-485 with old employer while working with new employer. What are the documents I would need from old employer.
3. If answer to question 2 is 'yes', do I need to go back and work for old employer ever (before or after getting green card)?
Thanks
(1) is surely an option if you think your prayers are strong enough. I wouldnt trust prayers when it comes to immigration process.
About options (2) and (3), its surely a great option. Contact your ex employer and file the greencard thru him. When I say "Thru him" all you need from him is a letter on company letter head from the boss/HR that still intend to hire you when you get your greencard. Other than that, it is possible to do the whole thing by yourself either thru your own lawyer or by doing it yourself. Its not rocket science. If you have a good lawyer, go thru him.
BEFORE YOUR GC IS APPROVED:
Also, keep in mind that you dont have to start working for him just because he is filing your 485 based on labor/140 that he sponsored. You can continue working where you are working right now. GC is for future employment. (However if you also apply for EAD, then maybe you have to join the ex employer who files your 485 at least during the intial 180 days after 485 is filed, please do check with your lawyer). Also, one last thing if you go thru this route. You need to maintain good relations with this employer if he files your 485 at least for 180 days after its filed. That's because you need him to write a letter that "yes I intend to hire this guy" should USCIS ask him that again during the intial 180 days. After 180 days have passed, if USCIS asks and sends RFE about "who is going to hire you after getting GC", you can exercise your AC21 option and produce a letter from your current employer (whomever you are working for at the time) that they intend to keep your employed after you get GC.
AFTER YOUR GC IS APPROVED:
Now, about having to work for your ex-employer because you filing 485 based on approved labor and 140 that was sponsored by your ex-employer, here is the deal : If 180 days have passed since your 485 is pending and if your greencard is approved after that (after 180 days of 485 filing) then you do not have to go back to your ex-employer. That's because the option of using AC21 portability is available only AFTER 180 days, not before that. Now, if your 485 gets approved in less than 180 days (which is unlikely because they are never that fast and plus the dates have to be current), then YES, you have to go to work for your employer for at least a couple of months as soon as your 485 is approved. However, the chances of the situation coming to that is very unlikely. I dont think anyone is going to get their 485 approved in less than 180 days.
I had my PERM labour and I-140 approved with priority date Dec 2005 in EB2 category. I changed my job in April and was hoping to get the priority date transferred to with new labour and I-140 from new employer. I have not started the GC process with new employer and am in good terms with old employer. With the priority dates being current for July (and probably for August too), what are the options I have:
1. Filing new labour and pray to get approved before end of August. Then file for I-140 and I-485 concurrently. Do I stand a chance there, with advertisement publishing and other formalities?
2. Can I file my I-485 with old employer while working with new employer. What are the documents I would need from old employer.
3. If answer to question 2 is 'yes', do I need to go back and work for old employer ever (before or after getting green card)?
Thanks
(1) is surely an option if you think your prayers are strong enough. I wouldnt trust prayers when it comes to immigration process.
About options (2) and (3), its surely a great option. Contact your ex employer and file the greencard thru him. When I say "Thru him" all you need from him is a letter on company letter head from the boss/HR that still intend to hire you when you get your greencard. Other than that, it is possible to do the whole thing by yourself either thru your own lawyer or by doing it yourself. Its not rocket science. If you have a good lawyer, go thru him.
BEFORE YOUR GC IS APPROVED:
Also, keep in mind that you dont have to start working for him just because he is filing your 485 based on labor/140 that he sponsored. You can continue working where you are working right now. GC is for future employment. (However if you also apply for EAD, then maybe you have to join the ex employer who files your 485 at least during the intial 180 days after 485 is filed, please do check with your lawyer). Also, one last thing if you go thru this route. You need to maintain good relations with this employer if he files your 485 at least for 180 days after its filed. That's because you need him to write a letter that "yes I intend to hire this guy" should USCIS ask him that again during the intial 180 days. After 180 days have passed, if USCIS asks and sends RFE about "who is going to hire you after getting GC", you can exercise your AC21 option and produce a letter from your current employer (whomever you are working for at the time) that they intend to keep your employed after you get GC.
AFTER YOUR GC IS APPROVED:
Now, about having to work for your ex-employer because you filing 485 based on approved labor and 140 that was sponsored by your ex-employer, here is the deal : If 180 days have passed since your 485 is pending and if your greencard is approved after that (after 180 days of 485 filing) then you do not have to go back to your ex-employer. That's because the option of using AC21 portability is available only AFTER 180 days, not before that. Now, if your 485 gets approved in less than 180 days (which is unlikely because they are never that fast and plus the dates have to be current), then YES, you have to go to work for your employer for at least a couple of months as soon as your 485 is approved. However, the chances of the situation coming to that is very unlikely. I dont think anyone is going to get their 485 approved in less than 180 days.
hairstyles lmao! view quote. tags: dating
lostinbeta
10-04 01:00 AM
Did you click the paint bucket inside the marquee area.
If you click outside, it will not fill anything, but if you click inside the selected area, it will fill.
If you click outside, it will not fill anything, but if you click inside the selected area, it will fill.
chanduv23
12-09 10:19 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
ahnewGC
07-25 12:19 PM
Hi,
may I know what would be the problem if the name is not mentioned in the birth certificate. It was issued right after I born, without specifying name.
my parents name, date of birth ,date of place are there in the birth certificate.
filed I485 in late june. I guess they might send RFE.
Thank u
regards
ahnewgc
may I know what would be the problem if the name is not mentioned in the birth certificate. It was issued right after I born, without specifying name.
my parents name, date of birth ,date of place are there in the birth certificate.
filed I485 in late june. I guess they might send RFE.
Thank u
regards
ahnewgc
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar