nlssubbu
12-12 07:30 PM
Hi!
I have an approved H1 until 2009 but expired visa in my passport. I have AP and EAD approved. My lawyer has the original I-485 receipt notice - I only have a fax of it. I am travelling to India in Jan-08.
I am planning to re-enter the USA on AP. Do I need original I-485 receipt to re-enter? OR is AP documents enough? Do I need to carry approved H1-B notice or any other docs?
Thanks for your help!
Vivek.
I-485 receipt notice belongs to you and I do not know why your attorney retained them. If your attorney is not appointed by you and employed through your company, it is all the more better, if you have this copy with you.
If you are planning to re-enter using AP, then have the original I-485 receipt notice and the company letter to be on the safer side.
Have a safe trip!
I have an approved H1 until 2009 but expired visa in my passport. I have AP and EAD approved. My lawyer has the original I-485 receipt notice - I only have a fax of it. I am travelling to India in Jan-08.
I am planning to re-enter the USA on AP. Do I need original I-485 receipt to re-enter? OR is AP documents enough? Do I need to carry approved H1-B notice or any other docs?
Thanks for your help!
Vivek.
I-485 receipt notice belongs to you and I do not know why your attorney retained them. If your attorney is not appointed by you and employed through your company, it is all the more better, if you have this copy with you.
If you are planning to re-enter using AP, then have the original I-485 receipt notice and the company letter to be on the safer side.
Have a safe trip!
black cat marvel. Sexy Black Cat 3
webm
02-24 03:10 PM
In 2-3 weeks span..
black cat marvel. Black Cat
kirupa
10-12 10:07 PM
Oh, I made them out of your PSD file :)
black cat marvel. No one draws the Blackcat
Pineapple
04-27 07:56 AM
read this:
Congressional Dems Say No Immigration Bill Anytime Soon - The Gaggle Blog - Newsweek.com (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/04/26/congressional-dems-say-no-immigration-bill-anytime-soon.aspx?hpid=topnews)
Congressional Dems Say No Immigration Bill Anytime Soon - The Gaggle Blog - Newsweek.com (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/04/26/congressional-dems-say-no-immigration-bill-anytime-soon.aspx?hpid=topnews)
more...
black cat marvel. lack cat marvel.
ras
05-23 10:29 AM
Is EAD to H1 a complicated process? If so what could be the reasons.
I still have 1.5 years on H1. I posted earlier but didn't get a clear idea.
I still have 1.5 years on H1. I posted earlier but didn't get a clear idea.
black cat marvel. Yaya Han Black Cat Cosplay
SGP
04-14 06:29 AM
Hi,
I am trying to find a job under the "new H1-B quota" after leaving the H1-B status last year even though I did NOT exhaust my initial 6 year quota.
So, can you
1. enter the US on B2 for a job search from June 2011 - September 2011 - Yes
2. leave the US on September 29, 2011 ( right before October 1, 2011 ) with a new H1-B quota I-797 - Yes
3. get an new H1 stamped outside under the new quota with a September 20 - October 7 , 2011 consular appointment date - Yes
4. enter the US for the job right after getting the visa stamped on let us say on October 15, 2011 - Yes
and not raise any of the following red flags :
1. Why is this person applying for a new H1-B visa right after returning from a B2 after such a long stay ? No Flag will be raised.
2. Did he complete 365 days outside the US since I had a previous 6 year H1-B. I would have done 365 days outside the US by June 2011 before re-entering on B2 - If you meet the criteria of staying outside the US for 365 days, then no flags should be raised
3. want to be a little careful since between June 2010 - June 2011 I have made a few 3-4 days trips to the US on B2 already throughout that time ? Does this hurt anything ? Would the consulate for stamping care about this or the USCIS or both ? Are the 365 days supposed to be continuous ? If you have not entered using H1 status you should be fine
4. I dont want to change status from B2 to H1-B since people say this is very risky. Any comments ? Yes do not change status in US
5. Would the consulate cancel my B2 visa after stamping H1-B ? - No they will not
Please advise on where I should give gaps in my timeline or would cutting it so close work ?- Don't have reply for this. Sorry.
Please see my replies in Bold Dark Green.
____________________
Deadline = April 30th, 2011
Goal = 5000 votes on survey (see I-485 filing w/o current PD thread) and momentum to continue with this campaign.The survey is a platform to gather and push for launching action items. Based on response by 04/30/2011 - IV will decide whether to even proceed with initiative or not.
Actions - 1) Vote on survey.
2)Email ivcoordinator@gmail.com with PD, ph#,email & subject "I485 filing impacted”,
3)Print/Circulate Fliers and spread FB, wiki link (see "support thread")
I am trying to find a job under the "new H1-B quota" after leaving the H1-B status last year even though I did NOT exhaust my initial 6 year quota.
So, can you
1. enter the US on B2 for a job search from June 2011 - September 2011 - Yes
2. leave the US on September 29, 2011 ( right before October 1, 2011 ) with a new H1-B quota I-797 - Yes
3. get an new H1 stamped outside under the new quota with a September 20 - October 7 , 2011 consular appointment date - Yes
4. enter the US for the job right after getting the visa stamped on let us say on October 15, 2011 - Yes
and not raise any of the following red flags :
1. Why is this person applying for a new H1-B visa right after returning from a B2 after such a long stay ? No Flag will be raised.
2. Did he complete 365 days outside the US since I had a previous 6 year H1-B. I would have done 365 days outside the US by June 2011 before re-entering on B2 - If you meet the criteria of staying outside the US for 365 days, then no flags should be raised
3. want to be a little careful since between June 2010 - June 2011 I have made a few 3-4 days trips to the US on B2 already throughout that time ? Does this hurt anything ? Would the consulate for stamping care about this or the USCIS or both ? Are the 365 days supposed to be continuous ? If you have not entered using H1 status you should be fine
4. I dont want to change status from B2 to H1-B since people say this is very risky. Any comments ? Yes do not change status in US
5. Would the consulate cancel my B2 visa after stamping H1-B ? - No they will not
Please advise on where I should give gaps in my timeline or would cutting it so close work ?- Don't have reply for this. Sorry.
Please see my replies in Bold Dark Green.
____________________
Deadline = April 30th, 2011
Goal = 5000 votes on survey (see I-485 filing w/o current PD thread) and momentum to continue with this campaign.The survey is a platform to gather and push for launching action items. Based on response by 04/30/2011 - IV will decide whether to even proceed with initiative or not.
Actions - 1) Vote on survey.
2)Email ivcoordinator@gmail.com with PD, ph#,email & subject "I485 filing impacted”,
3)Print/Circulate Fliers and spread FB, wiki link (see "support thread")
more...
black cat marvel. Characters have been used for
pappu
06-07 02:11 PM
Transaction ID: 7WK494028G568634H
Thank you
Thank you
black cat marvel. JScott does a good Black
ss1026
02-07 12:44 AM
The immigrant visa dates for EB-2 ROW (France is part of ROW - Rest Of the World) are current. That means if you convince your company to apply for a EB-2 GC, it could be approved quickly, probably within a year or two. Just for comparision, EB-2 dates for India are in Early 2004 (that is a five year wait). It makes sense to go with EB-2 employment GC. I am an India and the wait for us is the longest across the board. In the current economic scenario, it might be prudent to wait a bit before starting your employment GC. It is best to follow your attorney/firms advice on the timing.
I am not sure if you have the patience or the desire to wait for your future daughter to grow to 21 and apply for a family GC. I am not sure what the wait times are for family based GC for ROW but they are not as attractive as employment based Green card. There is no comparision in the wait times though so I imagine the other person was probably kidding. And for clarification, the longest wait for employment based GC for EB-3 India which is currently at Oct 2001 (about 7.5 years).....and that is my category :-( . It certainly aint a decade yet though it seems headed that way.
I am not sure if you have the patience or the desire to wait for your future daughter to grow to 21 and apply for a family GC. I am not sure what the wait times are for family based GC for ROW but they are not as attractive as employment based Green card. There is no comparision in the wait times though so I imagine the other person was probably kidding. And for clarification, the longest wait for employment based GC for EB-3 India which is currently at Oct 2001 (about 7.5 years).....and that is my category :-( . It certainly aint a decade yet though it seems headed that way.
more...
black cat marvel. Black Cat
bpadala
05-08 05:42 PM
You have successfully signed up for a subscription to Donation to Support Immigration Voice (User: bpadala) using PayPal.
Your first subscription payment, for $25.00 USD, has already been sent to Immigration Voice.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subscription Details
----------------------------------------------------------------
Date of sign up: May 8, 2009
Subscription Name: Donation to Support Immigration Voice (User: bpadala)
Subscription Number: S-1LE87239MT427644C
Subscription Terms:
$25.00 USD for 12 months
Your first subscription payment, for $25.00 USD, has already been sent to Immigration Voice.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subscription Details
----------------------------------------------------------------
Date of sign up: May 8, 2009
Subscription Name: Donation to Support Immigration Voice (User: bpadala)
Subscription Number: S-1LE87239MT427644C
Subscription Terms:
$25.00 USD for 12 months
black cat marvel. Black Cat Costume by Marvel/
MSCapBust
07-25 09:54 PM
Thanks you all for replying.
I have 2 clarifications:
1. Am I allowed to begin work only on 1st Oct 2006?
If I'm exempt from the cap, does that mean I can begin work anytime or am I subject to the yearly schedules dates like everyone else? I keep hearing both versions. Please do clarify.
2. I did NOT get my H1-B stamped on my passport (back in 2002).
Since I was quitting and going back to school, I didn�t bother to get it done and got a new F-1 instead. I do however; have my H1-B approval document. Does this affect anything with regards to the cap? In other words, am I exempt only if I get a H1-B stamping?
I do apologize for asking quite so many times, but I really do want to make sure before I let the cap be reached.
Thanks very much once again.
Slightly more relieved.
I have 2 clarifications:
1. Am I allowed to begin work only on 1st Oct 2006?
If I'm exempt from the cap, does that mean I can begin work anytime or am I subject to the yearly schedules dates like everyone else? I keep hearing both versions. Please do clarify.
2. I did NOT get my H1-B stamped on my passport (back in 2002).
Since I was quitting and going back to school, I didn�t bother to get it done and got a new F-1 instead. I do however; have my H1-B approval document. Does this affect anything with regards to the cap? In other words, am I exempt only if I get a H1-B stamping?
I do apologize for asking quite so many times, but I really do want to make sure before I let the cap be reached.
Thanks very much once again.
Slightly more relieved.
more...
black cat marvel. THE BLACK CAT!
lostinbeta
10-04 12:20 AM
Good Luck=)
black cat marvel. as The Black Cat wasn#39;t
sidbee
06-10 01:47 PM
Sidbee,
thank you sidbee and i would pray that you would never be in this position. Its hard to stay home without at job and secondly, with H1B laidoff its even tougher.
I was laidoff recently and i know the stress one goes through. That's the reason i am trying to help by making a IVjobhunters group. I have found my job and i have nothing to gain.
Sidbee if you cannot talk good or help please shut your mouth. . If someone is asking for help ( Laidoff means Was terminated from work for no reason of yours).
You have the right to ask your employer for one way return ticket to your home town. Its not just the international airport but till your home town, Its a law and you should get it.
I was laidoff and i took unemployment benifits, Sidbee, Give me a lecture.
J thomas
You took me wrong.
I meant , that if i was illegaL (laid of for 5 months) , i would just leave without making noises.
I was giving my point of view.
And yes if i was laid off today , i would fight to get my return tickets. But if i choose to be illegal for 5 months, than i wont.
I have full sympathy, with whoever gets laid of on H1B, But thats the law, and i know it , and still i prefer to work on H1B.
thank you sidbee and i would pray that you would never be in this position. Its hard to stay home without at job and secondly, with H1B laidoff its even tougher.
I was laidoff recently and i know the stress one goes through. That's the reason i am trying to help by making a IVjobhunters group. I have found my job and i have nothing to gain.
Sidbee if you cannot talk good or help please shut your mouth. . If someone is asking for help ( Laidoff means Was terminated from work for no reason of yours).
You have the right to ask your employer for one way return ticket to your home town. Its not just the international airport but till your home town, Its a law and you should get it.
I was laidoff and i took unemployment benifits, Sidbee, Give me a lecture.
J thomas
You took me wrong.
I meant , that if i was illegaL (laid of for 5 months) , i would just leave without making noises.
I was giving my point of view.
And yes if i was laid off today , i would fight to get my return tickets. But if i choose to be illegal for 5 months, than i wont.
I have full sympathy, with whoever gets laid of on H1B, But thats the law, and i know it , and still i prefer to work on H1B.
more...
black cat marvel. spiderman/lackcat/MJ
gk_2000
08-18 02:40 PM
Nope they don't have any US local channels....i didn't get any signal at my place (North facing patio)..so for Indian channels thats the best option for me...earlier i had cablevision and they offer 4 channels (actually can only count 2 sony and zee the other 2 are ok) for $20 so 44.99 for 8 channels is a better deal there are no fees or taxes in NJ so 44.99 is final bill...also i am planning to buy Indoor Antenna (Terk HDTVa) for Local channels which will suffice my TV needs....i think :-)
Indoor antenna: I have tried them all. And returned them. They're no good
Indoor antenna: I have tried them all. And returned them. They're no good
black cat marvel. Diora Baird as #39;Black Cat#39;
logiclife
02-12 06:28 PM
Hi,
I am with employer A (he is good except that he doesn't like me talking to the attorney directly about GC process. I have to go through him for every single details and he is busy usually so contacting him is also a bit pain. Because of this my process is getting delayed sometimes).
Having said this, I joined this employer A in 2004 after I graduated and i am with him for 2.5 yrs since then. Now I am starting my GC process and I cannot show this 2.5 yrs of experience to my LC process (which is logical). On the other hand, I found another employer B who is willing to process my GC with one of the top attorneys.
So if i switch now, I will
1. Be able to apply for EB2 (MS + 2.5yrs + 1 yrs(before MS) = MS + 3.5yrs)
2. I get a very good attorney to file my GC
3. I will be able to have a direct conversation with the attorney (employer said its between me and the attorney)
If I don't switch, my odds are that
1. I have to go with Eb3 (MS + 1 yrs(before MS) = MS + 1yr)
2. Can't talk to the attorney directly
So IS IT WORTH switching the employer for
1. Gettting into EB2
2. Getting a good attorney to file my LC
3. Be able to talk to attorney directly
Your thoughts and suggestions are highly important. So please let me know what you will do if this is the case ?
Thanks
All employers, who refuse to share copies of 140, labor or H1 fully intend to retain employees by restricting their ability to switch jobs and retain priority dates for future GC petitions. There are not exceptions to this rule. Even if its your brother who employs you, the only reason for withholding documents is to bond you. That is the only motive to withhold copies. "Its property of employer..." excuse is BS. Yes, it is property of employer. But the xerox copies dont change the ownership.
I am with employer A (he is good except that he doesn't like me talking to the attorney directly about GC process. I have to go through him for every single details and he is busy usually so contacting him is also a bit pain. Because of this my process is getting delayed sometimes).
Having said this, I joined this employer A in 2004 after I graduated and i am with him for 2.5 yrs since then. Now I am starting my GC process and I cannot show this 2.5 yrs of experience to my LC process (which is logical). On the other hand, I found another employer B who is willing to process my GC with one of the top attorneys.
So if i switch now, I will
1. Be able to apply for EB2 (MS + 2.5yrs + 1 yrs(before MS) = MS + 3.5yrs)
2. I get a very good attorney to file my GC
3. I will be able to have a direct conversation with the attorney (employer said its between me and the attorney)
If I don't switch, my odds are that
1. I have to go with Eb3 (MS + 1 yrs(before MS) = MS + 1yr)
2. Can't talk to the attorney directly
So IS IT WORTH switching the employer for
1. Gettting into EB2
2. Getting a good attorney to file my LC
3. Be able to talk to attorney directly
Your thoughts and suggestions are highly important. So please let me know what you will do if this is the case ?
Thanks
All employers, who refuse to share copies of 140, labor or H1 fully intend to retain employees by restricting their ability to switch jobs and retain priority dates for future GC petitions. There are not exceptions to this rule. Even if its your brother who employs you, the only reason for withholding documents is to bond you. That is the only motive to withhold copies. "Its property of employer..." excuse is BS. Yes, it is property of employer. But the xerox copies dont change the ownership.
more...
black cat marvel. Black Cat is one of my
johnamit
07-16 09:50 AM
High-tech industry in their favor... that don't sound correct? is it?
Supporters of the bill included President Bush, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the high-tech industry, the Roman Catholic Church, many Hispanic organizations, farmers, restaurants, hotels and the construction industry.
Supporters of the bill included President Bush, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the high-tech industry, the Roman Catholic Church, many Hispanic organizations, farmers, restaurants, hotels and the construction industry.
black cat marvel. Black Cat Picture
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...
black cat marvel. on lack leather spandex.
Munna Bhai
08-24 01:34 PM
Can interfiling done for spouse. I filed 485 based on my PERM labor. Can I interfile this 485 when my wifes labor gets approved from Backlog.
Here is what I got update from my attorney:
"Once the I-140 is approved(EB3, Nov 2004), we will write to the Immigration Service requesting them to apply that priority date to the pending I-485 (EB2, Feb 2006) application."
Hope this helps.
Here is what I got update from my attorney:
"Once the I-140 is approved(EB3, Nov 2004), we will write to the Immigration Service requesting them to apply that priority date to the pending I-485 (EB2, Feb 2006) application."
Hope this helps.
black cat marvel. BlackCat-HeroesforHire.jpg
felix31
06-05 03:16 PM
I agree. Such delays are forcing several professionals to consider Australia and Canada. Its a loss to this country and gain for other countries since they have favourable immigration laws. However it is really tough to uproot ourselves and go some place else and start over. Canada still does not have a good economy and job prospects as in USA, thus the struggle is going to be hard for you if you were to look for a job.
Pappu,
I guess the uprooting thing depends on many other issues....
E. G. My husband changed 6 consulting companies - worked on projects all over US and we lived in 6 US states before finally settling down with the present employer who started hubby's GC.
However the retro thing is ruining everything (just like so many others here - we are not an exception).
In less than a year I will have a state teaching certification and will be just a step or two away from my Masters in ED.
Will that help me? No, sir!
We cant file I-485..and change of status to H1 for me is out of question (been on H4 6yrs).
So, in our case - moving to Canada is much like moving to another State...
Not a big deal...It certainly will not be the first time to rent U-haul. :)
What will be different is that once we land we will both be immigrants, free of employer's grip and never ending retro.
It is true we may not have a job in Canada for some time, but I believe the peace of mind will be priceless..
I dont mind tranfering teaching cert (its possible), even taking a few extra courses if they require me to do so. We can even move gradually, I will find a job first and then he will move.
Both my husband and I care to much for each other to continue suffering in the US, under these conditions. He is not happy, since I suffer professionaly and will only loose whatever skills I am getting now. (Alrready lost too much not working in the past 6 yrs).
If one spouse suffers and is not happy, how can the other be content?
He is under constant pressure of working longer and harder, God forbid new recession and job layoffs - I can't work, so who will support the family?? :eek:
We had enough difficulties in the past and transfered enough companies to finally draw aline and say - this is enough.
I would LOVE to work, BUT - as H4 - I can only dream about that.
Even with Canada's economy not doing so well and other obstacles you mentioned, just being able to work, start our own business is going to give us an enormous relief.
Guys - dont get me wrong, I am all for US green card and we support IV efforts monetarily and otherwise, BUT, if no immigration reform emerges, we will move to Canada.
In the next 2 yrs (while Canadian PR gets processed) we will know exactly how things stand.
Pappu,
I guess the uprooting thing depends on many other issues....
E. G. My husband changed 6 consulting companies - worked on projects all over US and we lived in 6 US states before finally settling down with the present employer who started hubby's GC.
However the retro thing is ruining everything (just like so many others here - we are not an exception).
In less than a year I will have a state teaching certification and will be just a step or two away from my Masters in ED.
Will that help me? No, sir!
We cant file I-485..and change of status to H1 for me is out of question (been on H4 6yrs).
So, in our case - moving to Canada is much like moving to another State...
Not a big deal...It certainly will not be the first time to rent U-haul. :)
What will be different is that once we land we will both be immigrants, free of employer's grip and never ending retro.
It is true we may not have a job in Canada for some time, but I believe the peace of mind will be priceless..
I dont mind tranfering teaching cert (its possible), even taking a few extra courses if they require me to do so. We can even move gradually, I will find a job first and then he will move.
Both my husband and I care to much for each other to continue suffering in the US, under these conditions. He is not happy, since I suffer professionaly and will only loose whatever skills I am getting now. (Alrready lost too much not working in the past 6 yrs).
If one spouse suffers and is not happy, how can the other be content?
He is under constant pressure of working longer and harder, God forbid new recession and job layoffs - I can't work, so who will support the family?? :eek:
We had enough difficulties in the past and transfered enough companies to finally draw aline and say - this is enough.
I would LOVE to work, BUT - as H4 - I can only dream about that.
Even with Canada's economy not doing so well and other obstacles you mentioned, just being able to work, start our own business is going to give us an enormous relief.
Guys - dont get me wrong, I am all for US green card and we support IV efforts monetarily and otherwise, BUT, if no immigration reform emerges, we will move to Canada.
In the next 2 yrs (while Canadian PR gets processed) we will know exactly how things stand.
black cat marvel. Marvel Comic#39;s quot;Black Catquot;
langagadu
12-13 07:48 PM
I am not clear about the problem but it may be possible they messed up the xerox copies they sent you with some one else? I would suggest to check that first.
sapota
11-14 09:11 PM
Hello all IV members,
I was wondering, the 7% green card allotment for each country, can than be considered as racial discrimination? I mean a law suit against USCIS for discriminating against skilled workers.
A question for all you, what do you think is going to happen? will EB2 move fast in next few months, I don't understand how can U.S govt play will all our lives? We all have some personal decisions on hold,
Lastly i feel, we should contact some high profile politicians in India, so they can put a question or make some time of arrangement for Indians who are stuck over here, we all know unites states is interested in nuclear deal, if some type of provision is put in there to help Indians in this country
how about holding another DC rally?
We have to do some big about all this crap!
I am not sure it can be argued as discrimination. All countries equally have the 7% cap. UK, Norway, Germany, Sweden, China, India, South Africa.....Just so happens that lot more applicants from India, China, Mexico, philipines.
I was wondering, the 7% green card allotment for each country, can than be considered as racial discrimination? I mean a law suit against USCIS for discriminating against skilled workers.
A question for all you, what do you think is going to happen? will EB2 move fast in next few months, I don't understand how can U.S govt play will all our lives? We all have some personal decisions on hold,
Lastly i feel, we should contact some high profile politicians in India, so they can put a question or make some time of arrangement for Indians who are stuck over here, we all know unites states is interested in nuclear deal, if some type of provision is put in there to help Indians in this country
how about holding another DC rally?
We have to do some big about all this crap!
I am not sure it can be argued as discrimination. All countries equally have the 7% cap. UK, Norway, Germany, Sweden, China, India, South Africa.....Just so happens that lot more applicants from India, China, Mexico, philipines.
h1techSlave
01-08 03:05 PM
from an old article: http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/H1BSummary.pdf?popup=false
Here is an outline of my proposal:
� To be eligible to an H-1B, the employer would be required to have not have laid off Americans
in similar jobs within the last 6 months, and not employ H-1Bs in more than 15% of its technical
workforce.
� An employer who wishes to hire an H-1B would be required to advertise the job on a central Dept. of
Labor (DOL) Web page for 30 days. If the employer did not hire an American during this period, the
employer would have automatic permission to hire the H-1B.
� The wage paid to an H-1B would be required to be at least the national median for all workers in the
field, including those with all levels of experience.
� After hiring the H-1B, the employer would update the entry in the database, stating the qualifications
of the H-1B who was hired.33
� The visa would be valid for 3 years. During this time, the worker could move from employer to
employer at will, providing that each new employer goes through the 30-day ad procedure on the
DOL database.
� If the worker were to stay employed in the tech field for all but 60 days during the 3-year period, the
worker would be deemed as having proved his/her value to the economy, and would automatically be
granted permanent-resident (i.e. green card) status.
� If on the other hand, the worker were to become unemployed for more than 60 days, he/she would be
required to leave the country within 15 days.
Here is an outline of my proposal:
� To be eligible to an H-1B, the employer would be required to have not have laid off Americans
in similar jobs within the last 6 months, and not employ H-1Bs in more than 15% of its technical
workforce.
� An employer who wishes to hire an H-1B would be required to advertise the job on a central Dept. of
Labor (DOL) Web page for 30 days. If the employer did not hire an American during this period, the
employer would have automatic permission to hire the H-1B.
� The wage paid to an H-1B would be required to be at least the national median for all workers in the
field, including those with all levels of experience.
� After hiring the H-1B, the employer would update the entry in the database, stating the qualifications
of the H-1B who was hired.33
� The visa would be valid for 3 years. During this time, the worker could move from employer to
employer at will, providing that each new employer goes through the 30-day ad procedure on the
DOL database.
� If the worker were to stay employed in the tech field for all but 60 days during the 3-year period, the
worker would be deemed as having proved his/her value to the economy, and would automatically be
granted permanent-resident (i.e. green card) status.
� If on the other hand, the worker were to become unemployed for more than 60 days, he/she would be
required to leave the country within 15 days.
No comments:
Post a Comment