saimrathi
08-22 02:23 PM
I'm on the same boat.. I-129 & I-539 recd on 7/16 at VSC and LUD of 7/19
Friends Need Advise Please!
My 485 packet reached NSC on July 2 with an approved 140 from TSC and no CC or receipts yet. My 140 has LUD of 08/12. God only knows where my 485 packet is lying. I applied for my 1st H1 extension at VSC which has a receipt date of July 12. I am planning to upgrade my H1B application to premium because my drivers license is expiring on Sep 30.
My questions here is,
1) Would there be any problem if my H1b is approved in premium with a new I-94 while my 485 is still lying with USCIS with out the recipts.
2) Would a new I-94 jeopardize my 485.
3) Is there any relation between H1B extension and 485 receipting.
Any answers would be greatly appreciated.
Friends Need Advise Please!
My 485 packet reached NSC on July 2 with an approved 140 from TSC and no CC or receipts yet. My 140 has LUD of 08/12. God only knows where my 485 packet is lying. I applied for my 1st H1 extension at VSC which has a receipt date of July 12. I am planning to upgrade my H1B application to premium because my drivers license is expiring on Sep 30.
My questions here is,
1) Would there be any problem if my H1b is approved in premium with a new I-94 while my 485 is still lying with USCIS with out the recipts.
2) Would a new I-94 jeopardize my 485.
3) Is there any relation between H1B extension and 485 receipting.
Any answers would be greatly appreciated.
wallpaper google maps funny.
pt326bc
10-31 06:30 PM
I agree with BharatPremi.
Address is a sensitive issue here in the US. USCIS aims to keep a tab on all aliens and has a rule regarding address changes being notified to the USCIS. They actually can penalize somebody who does not follow this rule.
So giving out a temporary address when you first arrive in the country could be okay but it is not okay once you start your employment/credit history.
Every address you have ever put on your credit card application/where you have received utility bills/received car insurance papers/dmv documents is actually pretty easily traced.
Just try accessing your credit report. It will list out all the addresses you have been in the past few years.
So having your friend's address for correspondence is a little tricky.
I have tried to have a PO box for correspondence with utility companies/credit cards/bank statements but as I understand you cannot provide a PO Box address to USCIS.
If I remember correctly when I went for fingerprinting they actually had a section for physical address and one for mailing address; but for most parts the documents you fill out for USCIS don't allow you the option of filling out separate physical address and mailing address.
Since the potential for being penalized by USCIS exists you should contact your lawyer and try to figure it out.
Regards.
Address is a sensitive issue here in the US. USCIS aims to keep a tab on all aliens and has a rule regarding address changes being notified to the USCIS. They actually can penalize somebody who does not follow this rule.
So giving out a temporary address when you first arrive in the country could be okay but it is not okay once you start your employment/credit history.
Every address you have ever put on your credit card application/where you have received utility bills/received car insurance papers/dmv documents is actually pretty easily traced.
Just try accessing your credit report. It will list out all the addresses you have been in the past few years.
So having your friend's address for correspondence is a little tricky.
I have tried to have a PO box for correspondence with utility companies/credit cards/bank statements but as I understand you cannot provide a PO Box address to USCIS.
If I remember correctly when I went for fingerprinting they actually had a section for physical address and one for mailing address; but for most parts the documents you fill out for USCIS don't allow you the option of filling out separate physical address and mailing address.
Since the potential for being penalized by USCIS exists you should contact your lawyer and try to figure it out.
Regards.
pnjbindia
12-11 12:44 PM
guys,
I have hired as an "Auditor" in 2002, which is also the title of my position in my LC. If I use AC21 for AUdit manager, which is considered to be in the same occupational classification, will it be a problem? My salary will probably be double of what is on the LC application.... your thoughts are appreciated..
I heard that a major change in salary with regards to AC21 can be a problem..and the the title "manager" will always excite IOs ...for RFEs...
I have hired as an "Auditor" in 2002, which is also the title of my position in my LC. If I use AC21 for AUdit manager, which is considered to be in the same occupational classification, will it be a problem? My salary will probably be double of what is on the LC application.... your thoughts are appreciated..
I heard that a major change in salary with regards to AC21 can be a problem..and the the title "manager" will always excite IOs ...for RFEs...
2011 Google+maps+funny+
unit
09-16 07:43 PM
Thank you for your responses.
My situation is different, since my 485 is not yet approved (PD Dec 2006 EB2).
Company A applied for my GC (140 approved and 485 filed in July 2007), but I have never worked for company-A. I had been working for company-B during all these on H1. However I am now with company-C for last 6 months using EAD.
I have never done the AC-21, since my lawyer said that is not required since I was with company-B and did not change jobs in between.
In my case, company-A is not closing down, and I am willing to work for them after 6 months or so.
My question is are there any risks in my 485 in this context?
Should I be moving to company-A to reduce any risk?
Would appreciate your responses in this.
My situation is different, since my 485 is not yet approved (PD Dec 2006 EB2).
Company A applied for my GC (140 approved and 485 filed in July 2007), but I have never worked for company-A. I had been working for company-B during all these on H1. However I am now with company-C for last 6 months using EAD.
I have never done the AC-21, since my lawyer said that is not required since I was with company-B and did not change jobs in between.
In my case, company-A is not closing down, and I am willing to work for them after 6 months or so.
My question is are there any risks in my 485 in this context?
Should I be moving to company-A to reduce any risk?
Would appreciate your responses in this.
more...
mdipi
10-20 09:44 PM
not bad at all, but the text sucks
:evil:
:evil:
VMH_GC
07-17 04:02 PM
Let us start sending Thank you flowers to IV core memebers such as Logic life, pappu ( i know only these two people) Please add to the list if you know anybody belong to Core team.
more...
pappu
05-11 12:51 PM
can we listen to this program online?
2010 Funny!
lostinbeta
10-21 01:51 AM
lol. Yeah I know your just kidding about that 3rd grader stuff mr. Iworkedforeidosandnike :P
more...
va_il
12-27 01:49 PM
With a EB3 PD of July 2002 from IN what can i expect after this May 1st hurdle being crossed.
Any insight would be appreciated.
Clueless i guess.
Any insight would be appreciated.
Clueless i guess.
hair Google Maps Funny Sightings.
reverendflash
10-21 02:06 AM
maybe Santa will bring you one? :bandit:
maybe Kirupa will give one as a prize for a contest :q:
maybe a miracle...
too many Dead Shows... :ninja:
Rev:elderly:
maybe Kirupa will give one as a prize for a contest :q:
maybe a miracle...
too many Dead Shows... :ninja:
Rev:elderly:
more...
aj2000
02-23 01:38 PM
shut up idiot. Do you know how many 485s have been rejected for using AC21? Some people have advised me to stay where I am as long as it takes, but my gut tells me to find another job. So I am just asking for risk and opinions.
Nice way to talk on forum , my fellow.. btw., I wanna know "how many 485s have been rejected for using AC21?".. really.. an exact number would be very helpful for people like me who are in same situation as you.
Nice way to talk on forum , my fellow.. btw., I wanna know "how many 485s have been rejected for using AC21?".. really.. an exact number would be very helpful for people like me who are in same situation as you.
hot found on Google Maps
H1B-GC
02-16 10:26 AM
Well, i feel its more of a Policy decision.If they really want to do something fast they will do it anyhow.The best example is how this woman from canada i guess,who got US citizenship in 2 days,yes its right '2 days' so she can represent US in the ongoing Winter Olympics at Turin.
Even CA state used to abjudicate Labor cases in 1 Months Time back until 2000.Later on 0 approval cases from then on.Surprising??
Even CA state used to abjudicate Labor cases in 1 Months Time back until 2000.Later on 0 approval cases from then on.Surprising??
more...
house google maps funny street view
hpandey
07-09 11:02 AM
In a perfect world you would return your employers 8K and he would give you your last two weeks salary.
But we all know the world is not perfect.
Imagine if instead of you benefitting from the accountant mistake were on the receiving end and you were underpaid by 8K in 2 years. Would you still say that it is the accountant's and company's problem and nothing to do with you .
But we all know the world is not perfect.
Imagine if instead of you benefitting from the accountant mistake were on the receiving end and you were underpaid by 8K in 2 years. Would you still say that it is the accountant's and company's problem and nothing to do with you .
tattoo lets Google+earth+funny
thomachan72
10-04 02:50 PM
I don't think so, only Green cards and citizens are charged on world wide income.
Tony I wish what you said was true. There has been a great amount of discussion among our members a few months back when the last date for such disclosure was and the majority opinio was that everybody has to report all foreign accounts containing more than 10K. Interest on FDs are taxable and if you already paid tax in India then you have to disclose that in the IT returns here.
Anyway I dont know whether they would take the pain to check out all resident aliens who have bank accounts in their home countries unless, as you said, they become US citizens/GC holders.
Tony I wish what you said was true. There has been a great amount of discussion among our members a few months back when the last date for such disclosure was and the majority opinio was that everybody has to report all foreign accounts containing more than 10K. Interest on FDs are taxable and if you already paid tax in India then you have to disclose that in the IT returns here.
Anyway I dont know whether they would take the pain to check out all resident aliens who have bank accounts in their home countries unless, as you said, they become US citizens/GC holders.
more...
pictures Google+maps+funny+findings
tnite
07-26 02:17 PM
I live in Jersey City. I am planning to move to NYC. My company and job location stays the same. I have filed my I-485 (received July 23rd) with I-140pending. I don't have my I-485 receipt notice, only I-140 receipt.
1) Is it safe to change one's residence(different state) ?
2) How do I update my address for I-485 so that I get the receipt notice at the new address ? As far as I know USCIS stuff is not forwarded by USPS.
Thanks
Funny that you're talking about moving and I thought about my life for a moment and here it is :
I was supposed to move couple of months ago to Stamford, CT (ninety miles form where I live and work now) but decided to stay after the July bulletin became current.I informed the apt mgmt that I want to extend the lease .
I didnt want to move after hearing horror stories from folks who did(Some of them did not get the FP notices, receipts and all that stuff).
Then sent in all the papers on July 2nd. USCIS came out and said we are not going to accept. I waited for a week. Nothing was happening so decided to move by the end of August.Called in the Mgmt and informed that I will move out by the end of August.
The came July 17th , when USCIS reversed their decision to accept. I called in the mgmt and told them some excuse and ask them to extend the lease by another month. Never ending uncertainity continues......
This is my story folks.Some may want to know Why I want to move, My wife got her project in jersey city and we decided that living in Stamford,CT would be half way for each of us and that was the only way we could live together. 90 miles drive each way for me and 11/2 hr each way for her .
End of the day, thats what matters.
1) Is it safe to change one's residence(different state) ?
2) How do I update my address for I-485 so that I get the receipt notice at the new address ? As far as I know USCIS stuff is not forwarded by USPS.
Thanks
Funny that you're talking about moving and I thought about my life for a moment and here it is :
I was supposed to move couple of months ago to Stamford, CT (ninety miles form where I live and work now) but decided to stay after the July bulletin became current.I informed the apt mgmt that I want to extend the lease .
I didnt want to move after hearing horror stories from folks who did(Some of them did not get the FP notices, receipts and all that stuff).
Then sent in all the papers on July 2nd. USCIS came out and said we are not going to accept. I waited for a week. Nothing was happening so decided to move by the end of August.Called in the Mgmt and informed that I will move out by the end of August.
The came July 17th , when USCIS reversed their decision to accept. I called in the mgmt and told them some excuse and ask them to extend the lease by another month. Never ending uncertainity continues......
This is my story folks.Some may want to know Why I want to move, My wife got her project in jersey city and we decided that living in Stamford,CT would be half way for each of us and that was the only way we could live together. 90 miles drive each way for me and 11/2 hr each way for her .
End of the day, thats what matters.
dresses Google maps funny - 60 pics |
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...
makeup a google earth satellite
PD_Dec2002
07-07 09:58 PM
Thanks for your reply. We just published the ad a week ago. Is that a big deal to revise now ? It went into computer world and stuff. I am not sure how difficult it would be.
Hence for this matter, I have another employer willing to file my LC this month. But I am thinking since I was not with them when they sent out the ad and requesting wage details, IS this something considered equivalent to LC subsitution if I join them and file my LC with already sent out ad ??
Your answer is highly important.
Thanks
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. But before you get flamed (and correctly so) by everyone, I just have one advice for you: "What goes around comes around".
Never, never ever do anything in life that will come back to haunt you. Dishonesty can only go so far...
Good luck.
Thanks,
Jayant
Hence for this matter, I have another employer willing to file my LC this month. But I am thinking since I was not with them when they sent out the ad and requesting wage details, IS this something considered equivalent to LC subsitution if I join them and file my LC with already sent out ad ??
Your answer is highly important.
Thanks
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. But before you get flamed (and correctly so) by everyone, I just have one advice for you: "What goes around comes around".
Never, never ever do anything in life that will come back to haunt you. Dishonesty can only go so far...
Good luck.
Thanks,
Jayant
girlfriend google maps Earth funny,
Caliber
05-03 11:56 AM
One thing they can agree on is covering their own a**.
i4u, Please think back if this is the language we use on Lawmakers of this great country.
i4u, Please think back if this is the language we use on Lawmakers of this great country.
hairstyles google maps funny street view.
ItIsNotFunny
12-11 01:04 PM
I fully think that if IV is serious for the dignity of its members and wants this not to happen again, then the person should be revealed and banned. I know this has happened in the past also but not taking this kind of action has given courage to such kind of people to attempt it again.
How do you know that actions are not taken? Just because they are not public?
How do you know that actions are not taken? Just because they are not public?
Pagal
09-16 03:43 PM
Hello,
Congrats! Apart from a nice party and some shopping, celebrate by becoming a donor to IV ... help those who are still behind ...
Congrats! Apart from a nice party and some shopping, celebrate by becoming a donor to IV ... help those who are still behind ...
eucalyptus.mp
02-18 08:58 AM
he is asking me to go back to India after March
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét