aka
10-30 07:04 PM
Hi, Why did you ask me rename the thread with a broader name?, it is June 07 filers - General Tracker, seems broader enough.
Thanks.
People might mistake this as a thread for people who filed on June 7th, simply because there are other threads out there for people who filed in specific date ranges. I believe you meant June 2007 in your title, right?
Thanks.
People might mistake this as a thread for people who filed on June 7th, simply because there are other threads out there for people who filed in specific date ranges. I believe you meant June 2007 in your title, right?
wallpaper Lacey Mosley
rbms
02-07 05:56 PM
I had been doing it for past couple of years. go to uscis.gov and look for instructions to file I-131. It only takes to fill out the application online. You have to submit the supporting documents.(copy of I485, I94 etc.). Read the "instructions for filling out I-131" document.
97 views... and no response..
has nobody filed EAD by self and after filing I-485???
97 views... and no response..
has nobody filed EAD by self and after filing I-485???
tonyHK12
10-04 02:21 PM
I contribute no more than 10% of my pay towards my 401K. I would not contribute more than this because I don't intend to stay here for a very long time. .
I contribute just 2-4% as I don't get company match. Regardless if you get a match, I know some friends who prefer to put it in India/mother's fixed deposit accounts for 8-10% interest, or if you have a PF account still open its an option. Property prices there too may shoot up in some areas, giving a good return, while here they may stay stagnant for many years.
Some banks allow NRIs to trade stocks or mutual funds in India too.
The only reason for 401K is if you plan to retire here.
Liquidity is a big problem as you have to quit the company for withdrawal from 401K. Some 401Ks give you loan at 2-3% interest. Its kind of strange because its your own money.
I contribute just 2-4% as I don't get company match. Regardless if you get a match, I know some friends who prefer to put it in India/mother's fixed deposit accounts for 8-10% interest, or if you have a PF account still open its an option. Property prices there too may shoot up in some areas, giving a good return, while here they may stay stagnant for many years.
Some banks allow NRIs to trade stocks or mutual funds in India too.
The only reason for 401K is if you plan to retire here.
Liquidity is a big problem as you have to quit the company for withdrawal from 401K. Some 401Ks give you loan at 2-3% interest. Its kind of strange because its your own money.
2011 Lacey
jcrajput
10-01 11:31 AM
They said refile application at the address mentioned at the bootom of the reject notice. And it is from Chicago Service Center.
more...
iwantgc
05-08 10:47 AM
Hello all and Pappu, thank you all for your response. I will take Pappu's advice as far as what to discuss with them plus my family's concern, my husband who had to be away from me for straight two years has returned to US and been hopeful to get a work permit through my GC process.
I am planning to return a call to the office of congressat 12 noon mountain time, im in Nebraska. I will keep in touch with IV core members after then.
I am planning to return a call to the office of congressat 12 noon mountain time, im in Nebraska. I will keep in touch with IV core members after then.
KanME
12-26 12:05 PM
Hello all,
not sure if this topic has been touched before; if we have a i-485 application filed; do we qualify as:
1) non-permanent resident aliens
OR
2) non-resident aliens?
thanks
not sure if this topic has been touched before; if we have a i-485 application filed; do we qualify as:
1) non-permanent resident aliens
OR
2) non-resident aliens?
thanks
more...
ganesha
02-20 06:15 PM
Any enquiry on 140 can only be done by the company or the lawyer. You have no other option except being nice with them:mad:
My husband's I-140 is pending at TSC receipt date Dec 07. The processing date is in Jan 2008. how can we enquire why his I-140 is still pending. no LUD what so ever.
Contacted his HR. they say, they are waiting for reply from law firm.
Other than form 7001 that needs employer signature, are there any ways to enquire into the delay?.
Thanks.
My husband's I-140 is pending at TSC receipt date Dec 07. The processing date is in Jan 2008. how can we enquire why his I-140 is still pending. no LUD what so ever.
Contacted his HR. they say, they are waiting for reply from law firm.
Other than form 7001 that needs employer signature, are there any ways to enquire into the delay?.
Thanks.
2010 good quotes for tattoos
gapala
07-09 12:26 PM
I am working on EAD which expires on 10th Septempber 2008. I filed for my EAD on 25th June, 2008 and with the current processing dates at Nebraska, my guess is that I wont recieve my EAD until later September/early October.
Will I have to stop working for the period when I dont have my EAD? My employer is very co-operative and will bear with me. But what are my options?
My husband is the primary applicant of our 485 petition, so we wont have any issues of going out of status.
I would really appreciate your advice on this.
I am sure your employer knows about the rules around eligibility to work and will not allow any unauthorized to work even for a day past expiry date.
Hope you will get the Renewed EAD soon before expiry of old one.
Will I have to stop working for the period when I dont have my EAD? My employer is very co-operative and will bear with me. But what are my options?
My husband is the primary applicant of our 485 petition, so we wont have any issues of going out of status.
I would really appreciate your advice on this.
I am sure your employer knows about the rules around eligibility to work and will not allow any unauthorized to work even for a day past expiry date.
Hope you will get the Renewed EAD soon before expiry of old one.
more...
GCard_Dream
04-04 05:42 PM
If you have filed multiple applications like 485, EAD, AP, etc and then you move and do an address change using the AR-11 form, addresses in your pending applications will not get automatically changed. The AR-11 form doesn't change your address in the pending applications unless you filled out the AR-11 form online and specifically requested that addresses in all pending files be changed. This is so weired that the CIS would change address in their central database but the address in the pending applications wouldn't change.
If you fill out AR-11 online, it will ask you if you have any pending applications with USCIS and if so, if you want to update the address on those files. If you say yes the you would have to enter the case/receipt number of pending applications and the new address. Good luck.
Despite updating the new address 2 times, and getting hard copy confirmation, FP notices for my wife and daughter have gone to the old address twice.
With an Infopass appointment, spoke to the guy at the local USCIS office. He confirmed that the current address is what is on their records.
Wonder how things work in USCIS. Keeping my fingers crossed for future mail!!!
If you fill out AR-11 online, it will ask you if you have any pending applications with USCIS and if so, if you want to update the address on those files. If you say yes the you would have to enter the case/receipt number of pending applications and the new address. Good luck.
Despite updating the new address 2 times, and getting hard copy confirmation, FP notices for my wife and daughter have gone to the old address twice.
With an Infopass appointment, spoke to the guy at the local USCIS office. He confirmed that the current address is what is on their records.
Wonder how things work in USCIS. Keeping my fingers crossed for future mail!!!
hair lacey mosley hairstyles
somegchuh
10-26 02:56 PM
arnet,
So they took the original I 797 after the itnerview and mailed it back with the passport?
Mihrid,
they should have returned your wife's I797. If she's still in India she can call VFS and follow up to get it. It is important that she gets back the original 797. Sometimes they ask for it at the airport when you land. My wife was asked for it once.
I am asking my wife to call both embassy and VFS to get I797 back. Here's the contact info I have been able to find
Have a question about your NIV application? Contact the NIV unit by the following methods:
Phone: (011-91-11) 2419-8310 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday
E-mail: nivnd@state.gov
Fax: (011-91-11) 2419-8407
Want to contact VFS? Please use the following methods:
VFS Helpline (Excluding Punjab): 011-4222-0000
VFS Helpline (Punjab): 0181-504-1444
E-mail: infodelhi@vfs-usa.co.in
VFS’ agents respond to phone calls from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Indian holidays observed by U.S. missions. E-mailed inquiries are responded to Monday through Friday, within two working days.
If you are calling from outside India, please call VFS at 011-91-44-4231-6767.
our experience:
they will mail back those.
my wife went to delhi consulate in sep 06 (i didnt go), and they took all reqd docs including our I-797s original, and when they sent stamped passport through courier, they returned all documents with passport including I-797s.
I dont think they took any document except fees receipt, ds-156/157, it was suprising to us not even the xerox copies of reqd docs like w-2's,marriage ceritificate, etc. i think, might be, they just want to verify and once they did that, they are returning it.
it took 3 days after interview date to get the stamped passport and documents through courier.
If any delay or problem in getting those documents/passport after 3-4days, contact VFS at delhi. I think you can track through SMS too.
So they took the original I 797 after the itnerview and mailed it back with the passport?
Mihrid,
they should have returned your wife's I797. If she's still in India she can call VFS and follow up to get it. It is important that she gets back the original 797. Sometimes they ask for it at the airport when you land. My wife was asked for it once.
I am asking my wife to call both embassy and VFS to get I797 back. Here's the contact info I have been able to find
Have a question about your NIV application? Contact the NIV unit by the following methods:
Phone: (011-91-11) 2419-8310 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday
E-mail: nivnd@state.gov
Fax: (011-91-11) 2419-8407
Want to contact VFS? Please use the following methods:
VFS Helpline (Excluding Punjab): 011-4222-0000
VFS Helpline (Punjab): 0181-504-1444
E-mail: infodelhi@vfs-usa.co.in
VFS’ agents respond to phone calls from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Indian holidays observed by U.S. missions. E-mailed inquiries are responded to Monday through Friday, within two working days.
If you are calling from outside India, please call VFS at 011-91-44-4231-6767.
our experience:
they will mail back those.
my wife went to delhi consulate in sep 06 (i didnt go), and they took all reqd docs including our I-797s original, and when they sent stamped passport through courier, they returned all documents with passport including I-797s.
I dont think they took any document except fees receipt, ds-156/157, it was suprising to us not even the xerox copies of reqd docs like w-2's,marriage ceritificate, etc. i think, might be, they just want to verify and once they did that, they are returning it.
it took 3 days after interview date to get the stamped passport and documents through courier.
If any delay or problem in getting those documents/passport after 3-4days, contact VFS at delhi. I think you can track through SMS too.
more...
canmt
11-27 03:29 PM
H1B transfer.
hot Lacey Mosley Sturme
BharatPremi
11-09 04:00 PM
if you have a resume, we'll just ask you to send it along
as i said it's only purpose is to see if we can identify and match skillsets for various action itmes/iv roles/work groups. sometimes some things come up and we find great matches that way...
we are not really interested in your GPA (superlative as i'm sure that is!) :D
:D:D:D I'm sure writing skills can right away be determined from it. Analytical skills, yes... But my career resume would not say how skillful I was dealing with local BJP/Congress/Bahujan Samajwadi corporators or local district magistrates while I was in India:D
Would wait for green signal to send it.
as i said it's only purpose is to see if we can identify and match skillsets for various action itmes/iv roles/work groups. sometimes some things come up and we find great matches that way...
we are not really interested in your GPA (superlative as i'm sure that is!) :D
:D:D:D I'm sure writing skills can right away be determined from it. Analytical skills, yes... But my career resume would not say how skillful I was dealing with local BJP/Congress/Bahujan Samajwadi corporators or local district magistrates while I was in India:D
Would wait for green signal to send it.
more...
house flyleafs lacey previouslyi
ramus
06-22 05:52 PM
It is free. I just got 8 photos done from AAA.... But I am plus member..
But even for regular member you should get 6 photos.
AAA is not free :cool: I tried it a couple of weeks ago. Infact they are on the expensive side (compared to Kinkos, Sears, Walmart etc.)
But even for regular member you should get 6 photos.
AAA is not free :cool: I tried it a couple of weeks ago. Infact they are on the expensive side (compared to Kinkos, Sears, Walmart etc.)
tattoo which lacey mosley getting
GCcomesoon
01-07 11:07 PM
Hi
First let me tell you that QA jobs are not relaxing & easy as some people think about it.It all depends on whats you aim & where you want to go in your career.There ample of QA-Testing jobs here & in India too.I have been working in QA for last 7-8 years & have worked on 3-4 assignments. I have hardly been on bench for more than 1 month.Its the way you look at things. I have also earned decent money in these years & I still make good money compared to some friends in development.
There are lot of QA-testing tools available from different vendors which you should try to learn , They will give you lot of exposure & demand in the market place.
Remember, Every job has its own value.No job is worthless.
Thanks
GCcomesoon
First let me tell you that QA jobs are not relaxing & easy as some people think about it.It all depends on whats you aim & where you want to go in your career.There ample of QA-Testing jobs here & in India too.I have been working in QA for last 7-8 years & have worked on 3-4 assignments. I have hardly been on bench for more than 1 month.Its the way you look at things. I have also earned decent money in these years & I still make good money compared to some friends in development.
There are lot of QA-testing tools available from different vendors which you should try to learn , They will give you lot of exposure & demand in the market place.
Remember, Every job has its own value.No job is worthless.
Thanks
GCcomesoon
more...
pictures lacey mosley wedding
eb3retro
12-11 02:54 PM
Hi there
I am asking the same question. I too want to take a job as a BA since that role is what I currently have for the last 4 yrs.
Are there any other ways to make this possible?
one way i am thinking of doing is asking for a EVL from the new company with the same kind of job description. 10 years ago, all these laws (to be in the same job description was having some meaning , people used to get GCs in less than a year), but these days it takes anywhere between 5-7 years, and how can uscis expect someone to be in the same description working for 7 years. it just doesnt make sense when you want to be competitive in the market.
I am asking the same question. I too want to take a job as a BA since that role is what I currently have for the last 4 yrs.
Are there any other ways to make this possible?
one way i am thinking of doing is asking for a EVL from the new company with the same kind of job description. 10 years ago, all these laws (to be in the same job description was having some meaning , people used to get GCs in less than a year), but these days it takes anywhere between 5-7 years, and how can uscis expect someone to be in the same description working for 7 years. it just doesnt make sense when you want to be competitive in the market.
dresses picture Lacey+mosley+sturm
GCVictim
07-24 01:20 PM
I just applied I-485 with EAD/AP on July 2nd. my wife also has H1. I am the primary to 485.
Question:
My wife wants to go for permanent position on EAD. When she will eligible for permanent position? After 180 days or can before?
Please seniors advice on this. because she is going to get contract-to-hire position.
Question:
My wife wants to go for permanent position on EAD. When she will eligible for permanent position? After 180 days or can before?
Please seniors advice on this. because she is going to get contract-to-hire position.
more...
makeup in lacey seemslacey mosley
immigrationvoice1
03-20 11:54 AM
I entered US through Logan on Dec 12th, 2007 and got i94 till Nov 2010.
When I applied for SSN at Norwood SSN office, they told me that the immigration dept have to cross verify my visa details and confirm them back which is still not done. Without SSN, Payroll is not generated. I have to return back to India in next 1 week. Can someone let me know the contact info of immigration people. Is this common thing to happen or i need to fight it out Any input will be appreciated. Thanks
I was in the same situation and was told by the SSN office person ( a very helpful guy) to re-apply and enter my address as of the SSN office address and he kept my cell number. He said he will call me as soon as the number arrives and then again when the actual card arrives. He called me on both occasions and I got my number in 2 days and the card in less than a month !
I was very grateful for the help and advice the SSN office person provided me at that time.
When I applied for SSN at Norwood SSN office, they told me that the immigration dept have to cross verify my visa details and confirm them back which is still not done. Without SSN, Payroll is not generated. I have to return back to India in next 1 week. Can someone let me know the contact info of immigration people. Is this common thing to happen or i need to fight it out Any input will be appreciated. Thanks
I was in the same situation and was told by the SSN office person ( a very helpful guy) to re-apply and enter my address as of the SSN office address and he kept my cell number. He said he will call me as soon as the number arrives and then again when the actual card arrives. He called me on both occasions and I got my number in 2 days and the card in less than a month !
I was very grateful for the help and advice the SSN office person provided me at that time.
girlfriend Lacey+mosley+pregnant
diptam
08-04 03:46 PM
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20598 Though the title says TSC we are trying to write a joint letter covering both NSC and TSC.
I'm stuck at NSC since May 11th 2007 - no movements. They have purposefully stopped working on EB3 140 at Nebraska
Mine is pending at NSC since 7th May 2007 under EB2. I can't explain my frustation in words... Don't know what to do...
I'm stuck at NSC since May 11th 2007 - no movements. They have purposefully stopped working on EB3 140 at Nebraska
Mine is pending at NSC since 7th May 2007 under EB2. I can't explain my frustation in words... Don't know what to do...
hairstyles lacey mosley testimony
rockrocky
03-26 01:02 PM
None of the immigration related questions were asked.
franklin
06-22 04:12 PM
doesn't matter, they are all pretty much the same, and cost pretty much the same amount of money.
It is murphy's law that they will all look dreadful :)
It is murphy's law that they will all look dreadful :)
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment