Eveready
07-11 05:25 PM
Thanks syed your post has been a great help.:)
nixstor
09-17 02:09 PM
Paskal,
That was one thing I was gonna say. I wanted to see how members would react. I am glad you brought it up though. As of now it says IV - Home. We dont need any procedures other than an update on our content.
That was one thing I was gonna say. I wanted to see how members would react. I am glad you brought it up though. As of now it says IV - Home. We dont need any procedures other than an update on our content.
desi3933
02-11 07:59 PM
I checked with attorney and they mentioned that I can continue on my L1 if I am with L1 employer OR if I am with H1 employer then I can be only on H1 status...
...
Did you tell your attorney that you have got new I-94 with H1-B written on it. I-94 indicates new status. There are no 2 ways about it.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
...
Did you tell your attorney that you have got new I-94 with H1-B written on it. I-94 indicates new status. There are no 2 ways about it.
__________________
Not a legal advice.
HOPE_GC_SOON
07-17 12:48 PM
Its too much of waste of a time, on this thread, and misleading all the time, llooking for some interesting news, like processing times.
Guys: Can we stop this somehow, and DO Focuson other major news.
Thanks
Admin should have closed this thread by now.
Thanks.
Guys: Can we stop this somehow, and DO Focuson other major news.
Thanks
Admin should have closed this thread by now.
Thanks.
more...
pbojja
02-09 04:09 PM
Hi,
I have gone to India last Nov (2008) and got the H1B stamping upto Aug 2010. while entering the U.S due to the expiry of passport, I got the I-94 upto July 2009. Now I need extend my I-94.
I am planning to go out of country to get the I-94. Shall I go to Mexico to get the new I-94 ?. Note I have the stamping.
Shall I fly or drive ?. Which is the preferred way to get the new I-94. ? Any one did like this before ?. Your help is appreciated.
Thanks.
I was in similar situation and I traveled to Canada and got my I94 extended . Usually they dont take your I94 when you travel for less than 30 days to Canada , however while returning I request new I94 with the officer and got new I94. I would say fly.
I have gone to India last Nov (2008) and got the H1B stamping upto Aug 2010. while entering the U.S due to the expiry of passport, I got the I-94 upto July 2009. Now I need extend my I-94.
I am planning to go out of country to get the I-94. Shall I go to Mexico to get the new I-94 ?. Note I have the stamping.
Shall I fly or drive ?. Which is the preferred way to get the new I-94. ? Any one did like this before ?. Your help is appreciated.
Thanks.
I was in similar situation and I traveled to Canada and got my I94 extended . Usually they dont take your I94 when you travel for less than 30 days to Canada , however while returning I request new I94 with the officer and got new I94. I would say fly.
lostinbeta
10-28 10:27 PM
HAHA, yeah, because they don't see your previous versions (unless you save your previous versions and keep them as examples)
more...
manand24
10-15 01:55 PM
I had LUDs on 10/05/2007, 10/07/2007, 10/09/2007 on my I-485 application after my FP appointment. I do not know what it means though.
kriskris
08-22 02:47 PM
you can renew your DL by showing a copy of H1 receipt and letter from employer regd employment. DL office clerks dont know this so your lawyer might have to call their supervisor. take your 140 along as well, actually all the documents.
one of my co-workers got it renewed based on H1 receipt. and we are in FL.
Sukhwinder,
They are not accepting the receipt notices in Dallas. They don't even listen to you if you try to explain them. All they do is ask for I-94 and gives us a paper that contains what all documents can be accepted.
Thanks
Krishna
one of my co-workers got it renewed based on H1 receipt. and we are in FL.
Sukhwinder,
They are not accepting the receipt notices in Dallas. They don't even listen to you if you try to explain them. All they do is ask for I-94 and gives us a paper that contains what all documents can be accepted.
Thanks
Krishna
more...
lord_labaku
04-14 12:34 AM
it seems clear - a child can claim either parents country chargeability. A spouse can claim a favorable country chargeability. I dont think it says that a parent can claim chargeability of childs birth country.
gsc999
07-11 02:59 PM
/\/\/\/\/\
Indio:
Can you please change the San Jose rally link on main page to this thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6365
The old thread is from last week rally in San Jose. I have started a new thread with the updated info. on this one.
Indio:
Can you please change the San Jose rally link on main page to this thread
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6365
The old thread is from last week rally in San Jose. I have started a new thread with the updated info. on this one.
more...
augustus
05-12 02:59 PM
Well, his job responsibilities are now more than before. I am not sure if this new position requires a masters degree.
It is the same employer but just a different job. The lawyer we have is always scared. We tried to do EB 2 about 2 years ago, she filed everything but retrieved the whole process when she felt we may have an RFE.
I don't know. I am so confused.
It is the same employer but just a different job. The lawyer we have is always scared. We tried to do EB 2 about 2 years ago, she filed everything but retrieved the whole process when she felt we may have an RFE.
I don't know. I am so confused.
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...
eucalyptus.mp
02-18 09:02 AM
As my employer is asking me to go back to India , what options I am having to get extention ? Can I file GC my own ?
singhsa3
10-22 01:00 PM
Some one gave me negative feedback on this thread.
To that person, why not you come out in open and discuss your problem.
To that person, why not you come out in open and discuss your problem.
more...
Almond
07-17 08:07 AM
This is a terrible situation, I feel so bad for you. Can you afford to go to a lawyer as soon as you can and ask for advice? I think it's very important, this is critical. 11 years:(
whiteStallion
05-15 03:16 PM
You are right. These certifications may add some value when applying for H1B Visa but not for GC Processing with USCIS. You can just ignore those certifications....
I would like to clarify one thing....
Are these Certifications from Sun Microsystems, Oracle and IBM consider as supporting documents for 4 year degree or equivalent to any educational qualifications or experience?
I mean, people are doing these certifications even with out a job or while on bench....
I do not want to degrade or project these certifications in low profile or so, I do know the value of these certifications while searching for a job, but could not understand how they will help you in education or experience with USCIS.
Correct me if I am wrong.....
- B+ve
I would like to clarify one thing....
Are these Certifications from Sun Microsystems, Oracle and IBM consider as supporting documents for 4 year degree or equivalent to any educational qualifications or experience?
I mean, people are doing these certifications even with out a job or while on bench....
I do not want to degrade or project these certifications in low profile or so, I do know the value of these certifications while searching for a job, but could not understand how they will help you in education or experience with USCIS.
Correct me if I am wrong.....
- B+ve
more...
gcdreamer05
02-24 11:45 AM
Recently we are seeing lot of people with new id without completing profile they are able to start new thread. What if admin enforced new user to fill the personnel information and then only they can post on this web site. More importantly some key massages\important issues get berried in active forums due to above issue.
Even going further we can put trial period for new users for 15 days .If they have any questions just pay 5-10 $ and get active in forum there answers will be provided by all our valued/all star members (most green as per rank) in this way we get more revenue and members get valued advice.
This is a very valid suggestion , because i believe most of the new questions are posted by that fake guy tunnel rat... with different different ids.
Even going further we can put trial period for new users for 15 days .If they have any questions just pay 5-10 $ and get active in forum there answers will be provided by all our valued/all star members (most green as per rank) in this way we get more revenue and members get valued advice.
This is a very valid suggestion , because i believe most of the new questions are posted by that fake guy tunnel rat... with different different ids.
jungalee43
03-25 07:01 AM
Today Times of India has published an article "Immigrants cost Americans low-skilled jobs". They have referred a study by Center for Immigration Studies. I have already written to TOI for publishing this and urged them to stop helping anti-immigrant groups by publishing such articles. All members please post comments on this article and ask TOI to stop nonsense. whether low-skilled or high skilled this is going to help anti-immigrant cause.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1463861.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1463861.cms
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)
JunRN
11-05 08:26 PM
I guess one option is "follow-to-join". Go back to home country and apply for follow to join.
But you should not miss that period when your PD becomes current. It usually takes one whole month for PD being current so I don't see a reason why they cannot file in time.
But you should not miss that period when your PD becomes current. It usually takes one whole month for PD being current so I don't see a reason why they cannot file in time.
reddy77
01-13 06:11 PM
Thanks Guys for taking time and replying to my questions, was able to get answers for all my queries. Thanks ...
No comments:
Post a Comment